Drug WarRant

“bullet” Minnesotans for Compassionate Care are having to counter some really outrageous claims by the Police Association.
“bullet” In the “duh” headline category: CNN’s Lou Dobbs Is Clueless When It Comes to the Drug War
“bullet” Scott Morgan: Tallahassee PD’s Pathetic Response to Rachel Hoffman’s Death
“bullet” Questions for Mr. Costa (put together by the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (h/t Alex)

“bullet” DrugSense Weekly
“bullet” “drcnet”

Daniel writes me with this link saying: “those repubs are insane.”
And I’ve got to agree.
One of the most bizarre things I’ve read in the silly season of politics. The GOP seems to be claiming that Obama’s suggestion — that he’d focus federal efforts on something other than interfering with state medical marijuana laws — is somehow a violation of the oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.

Barack Obama‰s pledge to stop Executive agencies from implementing laws passed by Congress raises serious doubts about his understanding of what the job of the President of the United States actually is. His refusal to enforce the law reveals that Barack Obama doesn‰t have the experience necessary to do the job of President, or that he fundamentally lacks the judgment to carry out the most basic functions of the Executive Branch. What other laws would Barack Obama direct federal agents not to enforce?Š

This makes my head explode on so many levels.
After 7 1/2 years of rubber-stamping the Bush Presidency, someone in the GOP apparently found a copy of the Constitution… and then failed to read it.
The Bush administration has quite possibly been the greatest danger to the Constitution in history, and the GOP (as well as the Democrats for the most part) have sat idly by and cheered.
Even when the administration has not been openly subverting the Constitution, the President has simply decided that he can interpret the Constitution his own way and ignore any laws that he wishes (remember signing statements?)
So now the GOP has decided that anything less than full-on federal harassment of law-abiding medical marijuana patients is a violation of the Constitution (when in fact, any proper reading of the Constitution would make the federal government’s actions illegal).
Wow.

Yet another driving study that confirms what we already know. This one specifically compared THC intoxication and alcohol intoxication.

THC primarily caused elevation in physical effort and physical discomfort during the drive while alcohol tended to affect sleepiness level. After THC administration, subjects drove significantly slower than in the control condition, while after alcohol ingestion, subjects drove significantly faster than in the control condition. No THC effects were observed after 24h on any of the measures.

No, it’s not good to drive while impaired in any way, including being tired, or talking on a cell phone, or under the effect of prescription drugs. But there is a dramatically different danger of driving drunk compared to driving under the influence of marijuana.
Those on marijuana, as a rule, drive more cautiously because they are aware of their impairment, while those on alcohol drive more recklessly. This is why the boogieman of roads full of drugged drivers from marijuana legalization is such nonsense.

There’s one problem often faced by those of us well versed in the facts of the drug war. We know the history and the science. We’re able to clearly distinguish the difference between negative consequences of drugs and negative consequences of prohibition. Our factual knowledge base is, quite frankly, overwhelming, and all of it points clearly, unmistakably, and inexorably to reform.
We’re even open to carefully considering opposing arguments (which fail the test of reason time after time), thus strengthening our confidence in the comprehensive nature of our information.
This didn’t happen overnight in most cases. It was the result of a lot of research, observation, and critical thinking.
So when we come across someone who opposes reform, we assume one of two things:

1. They are profiting from the drug war (politically, financially, or sadomoralistically) and thus are uninterested in the truth.
2. They simply don’t have the facts yet.

Once we’re relatively sure that the person is not category 1, then all we have to do is educate them. Right?
And yet, sometimes we find ourselves baffled by the reaction.
There are individuals for whom you could prove conclusively that:

• Legalization would result in less crime
• Legalization would result in reduced use of drugs by children
• Legalization would result in reduced drug abuse
• Legalization would result in enormous financial savings
• Legalization would result in dismantling of dangerous criminal organizations

… and they would still look at you like you were a crazy person bent on destruction of civilization as we know it for even suggesting consideration of legalization, even in controlled, regulated and limited situations.
These people are suffering from a form of cognitive distortion. [The term is most often used in relation to cognitive therapy to deal with things like depression, but I think it’s also appropriate to this situation.]
The cause? An authority figure need combined with a lifetime of propaganda. This combination sets the information down in pathways that cannot be disrupted by mere facts. (The conflict between factual information and established pathways can even cause unpleasant cognitive dissonance, resulting in lashing out against the person with the facts.)
Now I’m probably generalizing way too much in this post, but I’m guessing that a weak and/or fearful mind is much more susceptible to this kind of thing.
On the other hand… if, as a child, you found yourself on occasion saying to yourself “Hey, my teacher got that one wrong,” — and it was because of your own knowledge and not blind adherence to some other authority figure (church/parents) — then I’m guessing you’re probably less susceptible to propaganda and this form of cognitive distortion.
How do you deal with those with cognitive distortion? (Other than years of therapy.) It’s not easy. Those with only mildly set propaganda pathways may be dislodged through gentle yet persistent repetition of facts. It also helps, of course, to eliminate the propaganda reinforcement (we’ve got to do something about the ONDCP).
Maybe, once we’ve legalized drugs, we can use some of those hundreds of thousands of empty prison cells and convert them to mental health facilities to help the cognitively disabled. We wouldn’t want them to suffer.

… particularly if you’re also wearing a badge.

“The agents actually brought with them 146 pounds of marijuana in the trunk of an undercover vehicle,” […]
In addition to posing as drug buyers, [undercover officers] pose as drug dealers and the marijuana will be useful bait to trap more traffickers down the road.
The seized boat will be auctioned off and the sheriff’s office and the other police agencies that took part in the bust can keep the money. They’ll also split the cash the suspects paid for the marijuana.

And they get to keep the cash that we paid them through taxes, too!
And we get…
?
Seriously, we get…
?

Chief Dennis Jones, describing murdered Rachel Hoffman:

“She was completing a diversion program for possession of over 20 grams of marijuana and pending felony charges for possession with intent to sell MDA (or Ecstacy), maintaining a drug house, possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell, possession of drug paraphernalia.”

Sounds pretty hard core, doesn’t it?
Translation:

Rachel was a college student who sold pot to her friends. She was first caught with less than an ounce of pot and later caught with 5 ounces of pot and six ecstasy pills.

On the basis of that, they decided she should go to hard core dealers and attempt to purchase 1500 ecstasy pills, two ounces of cocaine, and a gun.

WFLA-FM 100.7, Tallahassee, FL
http://www.wflafm.com

Wednesday, May 14th at 7:30 am EDT
“The Morning Show” with Preston Scott and Eric Eggers

Guest: Mike Jones of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
Topic: The Rachael Hoffman murder

If you smoke between two ounces and nine ounces of marijuana every week, it’s possible that you might be at an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes. But we don’t actually have any, uh, actual evidence of it.
Link

David Harsanyi has a good read in the Denver Post: The government’s sorta-kinda-maybe logic

It could be argued that the most useless job in Washington, D.C., is held by John Walters, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. He’s otherwise known as the country’s Drug Czar.
And when you consider the spectacular number of useless jobs in Washington, that’s quite an accomplishment.
No one is saying, of course, that it’s easy being a figurehead of a cost-inefficient organization charged with implementing the biggest domestic policy disaster since Prohibition.

Ouch.
He goes on to attack the latest nonsense from Walters about teens, marijuana and mental health:

“Adolescent marijuana use may be a factor that triggers psychosis, depression, and other mental illness,” explains Walters, who admits “research about causality is still ongoing.”
Ongoing, doubtlessly, until Walters unearths the answer he’s looking for.
It’s not often you see half-baked phrases like “Could Actually” in the title of a study. You’ll also notice Walters also says it “may be a factor.” Because, in other words, “it may not” be a factor at all.

And then he really nails it:

And in the end, it is also irrelevant. Children shouldn’t use drugs, and even if drugs were legalized, no one is advocating children should be able to use them.

Read the whole thing — it’s a really excellent OpEd.

Unless we own their government and have it heavily on payroll, we’re not particularly popular in Latin American countries these days.
Ecuador Opposes Outpost in American War on Drugs
They don’t like our war on drugs, either.
As someone who works in the arts, I like President Correa’s hiring decisions:

In a shake-up of the armed forces in April, Mr. Correa picked Javier Ponce, a poet who advocates less military cooperation with United States, as defense minister.

And Ponce makes the obvious point:

‹Should Ecuador have a base in Miami? Or New Jersey?Š Mr. Ponce, 59, said. ‹The decision of the government is not to renew this accord.Š