Drug WarRant

Sanders will propose nixing marijuana from federal list of dangerous drugs

Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders will announce his support Wednesday for removing marijuana from a list of the most dangerous drugs outlawed by the federal government — a move that would free states to legalize it without impediments from Washington.

OK, Republican candidates. Here’s your chance. Set yourself apart from the pack and announce your support for legalization.

Many years ago, I first discovered Salon.com because of the powerful series of articles by Daniel Forbes exposing the government’s efforts to subvert popular culture with anti-drug advertisements. It was partly because of that that I decided to start my blog originally at SalonBlogs. Recent years have not been so great there, with a lot of heavily partisan reporting tending to dominate.

But this is a very good article about the repercussions of the controversial U.N. report: Censored UN paper calling for decriminalization marks beginning of the end of drug war as we knew it by Daniel Denvir.

Recently, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime quietly circulated a remarkable document not only calling “decriminalising drug use and possession for personal consumption…consistent with international drug control conventions” but stating that doing so “may be required to meet obligations under international human rights law.”

The paper’s language was sober but its critique of drug criminalization devastating, noting that a law-and-order approach to drug use “contributed to public health problems and induced negative consequences for safety, security, and human rights,” pointing to the limitation on access to clean needles and the resulting spread of HIV and hepatitis C, overdoses, vulnerability to physical and sexual abuse and, of course, incarceration, which disproportionately impacts poor and minority people. […]

Whether the paper gets released or not, however, is immaterial to its striking conclusions, which are carefully grounded in international law: the UN’s global drug war arm conceded not only that criminalization was a mistake but also that it violates human rights.

A lot happening right now, and a fairly good recap of that by Tony Newman: What a Week! Everyone’s Hopping on the ‘No More Drug War’ Train

New Gallup Poll: 58 Percent Support for Legalizing Marijuana…

130 Leading Law Enforcement Leaders Join Call to End Mass Incarceration…

New Canadian Prime Minster Plans to Legalize Marijuana…

Federal Ruling Protects Medical Marijuana Dispensaries That Follow State Law…

Leaked United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Paper Calls for Decriminalizing Drug Use and Possession…

Obama Announces Criminal Justice Reform Tour…

Steve Rolles at Transform has an outstanding update and analysis of the situation regarding the “leak” of the UNODC paper recommending decriminalization worldwide, and it’s withdrawal due to pressure.

The truth behind the UNODC’s leaked decriminalisation paper

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has responded to the ‘leak’ of its briefing paper calling for the decriminalisation of drug possession for personal use. Before considering this response, it’s important to be clear this wasn’t really a ‘leak’ in the classic sense. The document was to be presented by the UNODC at the International Harm Reduction Conference in Kuala Lumpur, and an embargoed copy had already gone to select media (the norm for such publication events). When it was then pulled at the last minute, the BBC, which had already filmed a news segment on it, decided to release it anyway. Richard Branson was filmed for the segment as a member of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, and was sufficiently annoyed when the UNODC backtracked, that he broke the story himself on his blog.

The UNODC response claims that the briefing is not a final or formal document, and does not amount to a statement of its policy position. It also rejects the allegation that the briefing was stopped from being launched as a result of political pressure. This does, however, feel distinctly like an organisation backtracking under pressure (even if that is something, of course, they would never own up to). It would certainly not be the first time member state presssure has led to supression of a controversial UN drugs paper. Its impossible to know what pressure might have been applied, but this report from New York Times at least strongly suggests that it was the US (as widely suspected) that derailed the publication (ironically having found out about it via a New York Times approach for comment).

Firstly, while the agency now says its decriminalisation paper “cannot be read as a statement of UNODC policy”, the paper itself explicitly says “This document clarifies the position of the UNODC”, before going on to deliver its damning critique of criminalisation and its recommendation to decriminalise personal drug possession and low-level drug dealing offences, all carefully referenced to the relevant UN statements, evidence and international law.

[…]

But whatever has gone on behind the scenes, the UNODC are now answerable to a document that is very much in the public domain. If they are suggesting there are flaws in the analysis, or that they don’t agree with any of it, then they will need to say why. They won’t be able to because it’s a legally and empirically bulletproof briefing that largely echoes statements they and other UN agencies have previously made. The UNODC, when challenged, will stand by the content of this document – because they have to.

They wrote it, and it is 100% correct.

You may legitimately ask why we should care what an outdated agency like the UNODC does or says. But the truth is that their support of the drug war has provided political cover for the actions of oppressive countries around the world. Even here in the U.S., mentions of our “obligations” to U.N. drug control treaties have been used to cavalierly dismiss discussions regarding drug policy reform.

Interesting election results in Canada. With 170 seats needed for a majority, the Liberal Party of Canada leads with 139 seats, Conservative Party with 76, and New Democratic Party with 12. Both the Liberal Party and New Democratic Party candidates have pledged to support legalization of marijuana. The way things are shaping up, this could result one way or another in the ouster of Harper, and implementation of marijuana legalization.

Tom Angell notes:

“While U.S. states led the way by becoming the first places in the world to legalize and regulate marijuana in 2012, it looks like Canada could soon leapfrog ahead of us and become the first country in North America to legalize cannabis nationwide. If that happens, it’s not only good news for Canadians who will be able to purchase marijuana from legal and regulated storefronts instead of being treated like criminals. It’s also likely to give reform efforts in the U.S. a bit of a boost — not that we really needed it, but a little friendly competition is always a good motivator. And legalization in Canada is also a first step to all kinds of interesting implications, like the prospect of President Obama’s successor discussing international marijuana trade issues with his or her Canadian counterpart in the not-too-distant future. It’s no longer a pipe dream to imagine a day when consumers and growers in Washington State and British Columbia, for example, could be ordering each other’s wares on the Internet for cross-border shipment.”

Nice thought.

Update: They are now projecting a Liberal Party majority. Trudeau pledges to work on pot legalization policy ‘right away’ if elected

This could be huge.

UN to call on governments around the world to decriminalise all drugs, says Richard Branson

The UN may be about to call on the governments of all countries to end the “war on drugs” and decriminilise the use and possession of all illegal substances.

In an extraordinary post on his Virgin website, Richard Branson said he had been showed a report by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) which dramatically changed the organisation’s stance on drug control.

He said the “as-yet unreleased statement” had been sent to some of the world’s media under embargo, but the businessman has gone public with it early for fear the UN will “bow to pressure by not going ahead with this important move”.

The UN was preparing to declare “unequivocally that criminalisation is harmful unnecessary and disproportionate”, Branson wrote. A document changing the UN stance on drug control was supposed to be released at a conference in Malaysia on Sunday, he said, but that has now been delayed.

“As I’m writing this I am hearing that at least one government is putting an inordinate amount of pressure on the UNODC,” he said. “Let us hope the UNODC, a global organisation that is part of the UN and supposed to do what is right for the people of the world, does not do a remarkable volte-face at the last possible moment and bow to pressure by not going ahead with this important move. The war on drugs has done too much damage to too many people already.”

Here’s the press release from Branson.

In tonight’s debate, Sanders was asked if he would vote to legalize marijuana in the state of Nevada in 2016.

“I suspect I would vote yes,” Sanders said. “I am seeing in this country too many lives being destroyed for nonviolent offenses.” Then he added the United States needs to “rethink this war on drugs.”

Kevin Sabet tweeted:

Not letting @BernieSanders off the hook on the marijuana issue.It’s well known he isn’t a marijuana enthusiast;we’ll get to the bottom of it

which prompted Tom Angell to retort:

LOL. Now Sanders is officially on notice that a losing movement with no political support is coming after him. #oooh https://t.co/2a6xgggYXf

Good article from Radley Balko: Meth isn’t an argument for drug prohibition. It demonstrates prohibition’s failure.

Meth is often the example prohibitionists pull out when someone points to an example like Portugal. “So you’d legalize meth, too?” But as the Economist piece suggests, meth is a product of prohibition (in this case alcohol, but also restrictions on amphetamines more generally), not an argument in favor it. We have a meth problem because we have drug prohibition. Without it, meth wouldn’t go away, but it almost certainly wouldn’t be as prevalent as it is today. […]

But let’s get back to that Economist article, and what could work — loosening the restrictions on intoxicants instead of tightening them. Here’s what I suggested in that post from last year, which I think the data suggest is even more clear now than it was then:

Here’s one idea that makes too much sense for anyone to seriously consider: Legalize amphetamines for adults. Divert some of the money currently spent on enforcement toward the treatment of addicts. Save the rest. Watch the black markets dry up, and with them the itinerant crime, toxicity and smuggling. Cold and allergy sufferers get relief. Cops can concentrate on other crimes. Pharmacists can go back to being health-care workers, instead of deputized drug cops.

Everybody wins, save of course for those who can’t bear the prospect of letting adults make their own choices about what they put into their bodies.

To anyone educated in the law who has a general sense of reality and the principles of our United States government, it’s clear that there’s a real problem with civil asset forfeiture as it exists in this country. For the most part, those who support it are those who profit from it.

So how does it still exist? Well, whenever I talk to people about it, their general reaction is disbelief. As hard as it is for us who are involved to realize, most people don’t really get it.

This survey points out the problem.

Have you heard of the term “civil asset forfeiture”?
Yes . . . . . . . . . 28%
No . . . . . . . . . . 72%

Close to 3/4 of the population just don’t know about it.

But when they do…

Which of these three options comes closest to your opinion about what SHOULD be legal?
Law enforcement should be able to permanently seize money or other property if they suspect it’s connected to criminal activity, even if no charges have been filed . . . . . 7%

If we continue to inform people, we should be able to change the law.

Seven Percent of Americans Think It’s OK For Police To Take Your Stuff, No Charges Needed

The poll found similar levels of support for who should benefit from forfeiture funding. Nationwide , 66 percent of Americans believe forfeiture funds should go either towards the state’s budget or to a separate fund (like education). Only 13 percent supported the idea that forfeiture proceeds should directly fund law enforcement.

Wide majorities across race, gender, income levels and political ideology back these two key reforms.

We’ve often discussed the fact that, when it comes to driving, marijuana often makes drivers cautious (countering impairment), while alcohol makes them reckless (increasing the impact of impairment).

This takes it a step further.

Studies by Oregon researchers hint that mild pot-induced paranoia may have a public health benefit

College students abandon condom use when binge drinking — but not when they’re stoned — a study by an Oregon State University researcher found. […]

“Unlike alcohol, marijuana may cause users to compensate for impairments in inhibitory control by changing decision-making and risk perception,” the study said.

In other words, the pot smokers may be a little bit paranoid or anxious.

The researchers concluded that “decision-making impairments may be mild following marijuana use and that cognitive compensation may occur.”

Update: It appears that the authors of the study were not consulted in the article, and dispute the support for conclusions made in the article. (see comments)

I oppose junk science and junk journalism of real science wherever I find it.

So, even though this post was intended as a bit of fun, I withdraw any support for this article.