Drug WarRant

“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

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has a planned billboard campaign proclaiming “Say ‘No!’ to Pot… roast.”

Now is the perfect time to run our billboard warning folks that pot roast is far more hazardous to their health than that other pot.
Dude, smoking dope might make you forget where you put your car keys, but eating meat is linked to all kinds of killer diseases. Meat is often loaded with drugs, pesticides, hormones, and antibiotics. The consumption of meat, eggs, and dairy products has been linked to heart disease, strokes, obesity, diabetes, and various types of cancerÖnot to mention other hazards, including E. coli, salmonella, and listeria. Yummy.

I guess they’re saying you should get baked, not roast. Regardless of your feelings about getting high, or eating beef, or eating beef while high, it’s a clever ad that makes its point with some fun.
But naturally, some people had a different take

Not everyone agrees that the comparison is fair or even accurate, as Humboldt County Farm Bureau President Jim Regli points out. ‹She‰s misrepresenting the whole issue,Š he said. ‹She‰s scaring the public (and) if she‰s trying to make pot OK, it‰s not — there‰s a lot of severe consequences to that.Š

Um, Jim — you may be an expert on beef (or you may simply have self-interest), but you’re clearly not an expert on pot, so stick to talking about what you know.

Link

The federal New Democrats have lost their second pro-marijuana B.C. candidate in a matter of days.
Vancouver-Quadra candidate Kirk Tousaw, a lawyer and former campaign director for the B.C. Marijuana Party, resigned Friday afternoon. […]
Marijuana advocate Dana Larsen resigned as the NDP’s candidate for West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast this week after online videos surfaced showing him smoking marijuana and dropping LSD. […]
[Gerry Scott, the NDP’s B.C. campaign director] said the party has no issue with candidates advocating less restrictive laws for marijuana, but felt there was a distinction when videos of a candidate using the drug were freely available.

Um, Gerry, I’d like to introduce to you the Republican governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Hmmm… Looks like the U.S. doesn’t hold the patent on silliness in political campaigns. Only difference is that our politicians admit to doing drugs and then never talk about drugs again.

Massachusetts is considering a mild decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana, so the drug warriors are out in force, lining up to proclaim disaster and the end of the world, as they seek to protect their piece of the drug war pie.

There must have been 30 of them. Standing on the steps of the New Bedford Superior Court like a phalanx of armed guards, ready to protect the public against the enemy.
Protect us against what?

The notion of any kind of relaxation of marijuana laws, of course.

These are the folks who are currently in charge of this so-called battle against drugs, the war that the country has failed to win for half a century. They were competing with each other for most alarmist comment of the day.
“This will lead to more violence,” said Bristol County District Attorney Sam Sutter, dismissing out of hand the views of many mainstream citizens that prosecuting marijuana possession is both unreasonable and prohibitively expensive.
Mr. Sutter is nothing if not determined to prove he’s tough on crime.
“This ridiculous initiative would put our children and young people in dangerous situations” with violent marijuana dealers, he intoned.

Marijuana. Violence? No.
Drug war. Violence? Yes.
I guess we should outlaw Mr. Sutter.
But it gets worse:

And “I don’t want to hear,” he said, those “specious” and “bogus” arguments that marijuana is like alcohol. Alcohol, he informed the media event, can have health benefits.

Talk about specious and bogus! I’m sure when Mr. Sutter has finished his long day of prosecuting pot smokers who were watching Harold and Kumar, and he and his friends pop open a couple of six-packs while they watch the New England Patriots, it’s just for the health benefits.
People drink to get high. People smoke pot to get high. People do a lot of things to get high. And as long as they’re not abusing it or hurting anyone else, it’s not Mr. Sutter’s business to go and harm them.
But wait, it got even more pathetic:

And tobacco? Why, that takes a long time to do damage, he informed.

Right. Better to outlaw something that will never cause cancer than something that will take a long time to cause cancer.

ot to be outdone, Fall River Mayor Bob Correia trotted out the time-tested “gateway” argument.
“Marijuana,” he said, is “the one they start our children off with!”

Well, that sounds like a good reason to oppose decriminalization and go straight to legalization and regulation.
Jack Spillane at South Coast Today did a great job ridiculing these buffoons, while giving me the opportunity to pile on.

“bullet” Ironic legislation: On Wednesday night, the House passed a resolution praising the legalization of alcohol.

Co-sponsored by Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak, the resolution comes 75 years after the ratification of the 21st Amendment re-legalized alcohol. The resolution notes that “prior to the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, which established Prohibition in the United States, abuses and insufficient regulation resulted in irresponsible overconsumption of alcohol.” The ban, though, “resulted in a dramatic increase in illegal activity, including unsafe black market alcohol production, organized crime, and noncompliance with alcohol laws.”

Good for them, I guess, in recognizing that prohibition doesn’t work.
Read the entire resolution at Transform.
“bullet” I talked about the case of Weldon Angelos years ago (first arrest, sentenced to 55 years for marijuana sales because he had a gun (which he did not wield or use) under mandatory sentencing). Now in a creative approach, attorneys are arguing the sentence is unconstitutional under the recent Supreme Court ruling in Heller that affirms 2nd Amendment right to gun ownership for individuals.
“bullet” Strong OpEd by Carol Steiker: A Merciless Justice
“bullet” Politician apologizes for not using marijuana.
“bullet” This one’s a week old, but good if you missed it: Marijuana Could be a Gusher of Cash If We Treated It Like a Crop, Not a Crime
“bullet” I linked to this one in passing within the context of another post, but Jack Cole’s piece in the Boston Globe: The Solution to the Failed Drug War was pretty powerful.
“bullet” Bob Barr’s piece has shown up a couple of places: It’s Time for the Federal Government to Abandon the Drug War
“bullet” “drcnet”