Drug WarRant

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.

… but a good step.

6,000 inmates to be freed as US eases drug sentences

The Justice Department is preparing to release about 6,000 inmates from federal prisons starting at the end of this month, as part of an effort to ease overcrowding and roll back the penalties given to nonviolent drug dealers in the 1980s and 1990s, federal law enforcement officials said. […]

The release will be one the largest discharges of inmates from federal prisons in American history. It coincides with an intensifying bipartisan effort to ease the mass incarcerations that followed decades of tough sentencing for drug offenses, such as dealing crack cocaine, and that have taken a particularly harsh toll on minorities.

“Today’s announcement is nothing short of thrilling because it carries justice,” said Jesselyn McCurdy, a senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union. “Far too many people have lost years of their lives to draconian sentencing laws born of the failed drug war. People of color have had to bear the brunt of these misguided and cruel policies. We are overjoyed that some of the people so wronged will get their freedom back.” […]

“The drug war has devastated families and communities, and it is time for the healing to begin,” said Anthony Papa, a spokesman at the Drug Policy Alliance, who spent 12 years behind bars on a mandatory minimum drug sentence.

We’ve got a long way to go — so many people are caught up in the criminal justice system because of the drug war. But maybe, we’re moving in the right direction.

“Tobacco is a product that does a lot of damage — marijuana is infinitely worse”

This is my new favorite quote.

‘Marijuana is infinitely worse’ than tobacco, Harper says as he encourages pot debate to go up in smoke

Marijuana is “infinitely worse” than tobacco and its use should be widely discouraged in Canada, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says.

Harper goes all in on this one. I mean, it takes some real intentional avoidance of fact to claim that marijuana is worse than tobacco to begin with. It would be really ballsy to try to claim that it was twice as bad as tobacco. It would be unthinkable to claim that it’s 1,000 times worse than tobacco – since tobacco causes about 6 million deaths per year worldwide, that would mean that marijuana would cause 6 billion deaths annually, completely eliminating the world’s population in less than 2 years.

But to reach infinitely worse? That would require complete destruction of the universe and much more.

That’s what Harper is claiming.

A busy week at work for me, and some distractions in the news.

Are My Methods Unsound? Why ‘Sicario’ Is the ‘Apocalypse Now’ of the Drug War

There’s been quite a bit of talk about the movie Sicario. I’m curious. Have you seen it? And how does it, as fiction, stack up to the realities of our drug war?

I must admit, I’m not rushing out to catch it. In part, because when I go to the movies I usually want to escape. And a movie about the drug war just doesn’t feel like entertainment to me.

Legal marijuana sales began yesterday in Oregon. Sky fallen yet?

Can Addicts Finally Force the War on Drugs to End? by Maia Szalavitz

People who use or have used drugs rarely have a seat at the table when policy is set—and are heard from mainly in the form of stories of sin and repentance.

But now a group called Unite to Face Addiction is planning a massive rally in Washington, DC, to attack stigma and call for change. On Sunday, October 4, big names like Steven Tyler, Joe Walsh, Jason Isbell of the Drive-By Truckers, and Sheryl Crow will perform. Speakers will include former Congressman Patrick Kennedy, former baseball player Darryl Strawberry, author William Cope Moyers and current “drug czar” Michael Botticelli, who is in recovery himself. […]

The biggest challenge—other than fundraising—was trying to build a coalition, according to Williams. “How do we get prevention and harm reduction and recovery and treatment people who all disagree, how do we get them under a broad umbrella?” he asks rhetorically.

I’m happy to see this, while also recognizing the challenge. There are huge sections of the treatment industry that are little more than opportunistic mercenaries (like the vultures who send me letters all the time offering to write “free” guest posts about treatment and recovery in exchange for a text link to get better Google rankings for treatment businesses) who publicly push for continued prohibition so they can skim the criminal justice referral cream off the top, and, when they encounter people who really need help, conduct unsound treatment practices that can leave patients more vulnerable to overdose deaths.

Not that addicts themselves always have the right answers. Sometimes those in recovery can be rather religious in their proselytizing about their particular recovery method or about the dangers of “their” drug, not accepting that their story isn’t everyone’s story.

But on the other hand, too often there has been a paternal approach to addicts that says they are unable to speak about their own experience and they must be cared for against their own will.

It’ll be interesting to see what comes of this event.

We’ve talked a lot about race and the drug war here, and there’s an interesting article by Jess Singal in New York Magazine: The Black Activists Who Helped Launch the Drug War.

There’s no doubt that the drug war disproportionately affects poor and minority communities and that black communities in particular have been particularly affected. But the article points out that the drug war wasn’t just foisted on the black communities, but in many cases those communities welcomed it with open arms.

Michael Javen Fortner, a political scientist at City University of New York, is hoping to complicate the story that the Rockefeller laws, and others like them, were foisted on black people by white people. His book, Black Silent Majority: The Rockefeller Drug Laws and the Politics of Punishment, out September 28 from Harvard University Press, tells the story of Harlem’s struggles with drugs and crime from the 1940s through the passage of the Rockefeller laws. Key to this story is the role of Harlem’s residents in forcefully advocating for a tougher, more punitive approach to the neighborhood’s “pushers” and addicts.

Yes, many of the origins of the drug war were racist, and racism has often fueled the drug war, but as we’ve noted here before, in the early days of drug policy reform, it was often difficult to get black communities involved in reform. I saw that first-hand in communities where I lived. In recent years, that’s changed, particularly with powerful leadership in organizations like LEAP, NAACP, ACLU, and some church groups.

Stung by costs, some of Minnesota’s medical marijuana patients back to buying on streets

As we’ve often said here, the vast majority of people prefer to buy legally if they can, and are generally willing to even pay a little more to do so. But when the cost is excessive, it forces the user to choose between poverty and breaking the law.

“What we’re talking about is an expensive designer drug that only the rich can afford right now.”

That’s unacceptable.

A number of articles have come out this week about how Hitler’s armies were pumped up on “crystal-meth-like” drugs.

Tony Paterson at The Independent: Hitler’s all-conquering stormtroopers ‘felt invincible because of crystal meth-style drug Pervitin’

Hitler’s armies carried out their “Blitzkrieg” invasions of Poland and France while high on a version of crystal meth which kept them wide awake, feeling euphoric and invincible, says a new book about the Nazis’ use of drugs during the Second World War.

So that’s why World War II was so devastating. We were fighting super-soldiers who had completely lost their humanity because they had been turned into drug fiends!

USA Today: Author: Nazi soldiers were high on crystal meth in WWII

New York Daily News: Nazi troops ‘high on crystal meth’ during European advances, new book claims

Complex: Nazis Were Fueled by Crystal Meth, New Book Shows (A previous version of the headline was: “Hitler’s Nazis Were Meth Zombies, A New Book Says”)

Note the pervasive use of the term “crystal meth,” which isn’t really a proper scientific term, but certainly is a great fear-mongering drug term. Generally, “crystal meth” refers to methamphetamine that is in a crystalline (rock) form and is generally purer than powdered methamphetamine. What the Nazi troops used was a small dose of powdered methamphetamine contained in pill form (Pervitin).

Calling it a crystal meth-style drug is like saying that Bolivians make tea with a crack-like drug called coca.

The Pervitin used by the Nazi troops was really quite similar to what we prescribe by the ton for children under the name Adderall. Also, the soldiers in the British and American armies in World War II also used forms of amphetamines in the battlefield, while consumers at home used them as diet pills and in inhalers. We gave troops more amphetamines in Vietnam than the Germans used in all of World War II. U.S. Pilots today are still given forms of amphetamines.

And the other thing is, we’ve known for over 70 years that the Nazis used Pervitin.

Ah, but what reporter can resist a good drug scare-mongering story! It’s not like they have to worry about things like ethics or integrity.

Ronda Rousey Takes Stand Against Drug Testing For Marijuana

“I’m against testing for weed at all. It’s not a performance enhancing drug. And it has nothing to do with competition. It’s only tested for political reasons,” she said.

Spot on, Ronda. Although marijuana is on the World Anti-Doping Agency’s Prohibited List, the advantages it can offer athletes during a competition are, by WADA’s own admission, limited to “better focus” and “diminished stress.”

Diaz and many more athletes who regularly smoke marijuana use the drug for non-competitive recreational purposes. Diaz himself is a card-carrying medical marijuana patient in California. But in making its decision, the NSAC effectively stripped away all context behind Diaz’s possible marijuana usage, charging him like a cheater when he’s really just another fighter in pain — a point that infuriated Rousey on Wednesday.

“If one person tests for steroids, that could actually hurt a person, and the other person smokes a plant that makes him happy, and he gets suspended for five years. Whereas a guy who could hurt someone gets a slap on the wrist. It’s not fair,” Rousey said, also adding that she believes marijuana testing is an invasion of privacy.

Nice to see this. I think the World Anti-Doping Agency is going to start getting more pressure in this area, because it really is absurd.

Study on the impact of the world drug problem on the enjoyment of human rights. Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

[…]to be presented to the Council at its thirtieth session, on the impact of the world drug problem on the enjoyment of human rights, and recommendations on respect for and the protection and promotion of human rights in the context of the world drug problem, with particular consideration for the needs of persons affected and persons in vulnerable situations.

This is some really important stuff. Here are some highlights…

The Special Rapporteur on the right to health has underlined the distinction between drug use and drug dependence. Drug dependence is a chronic, relapsing disorder that should be medically treated using a biopsychosocial approach. Drug use is neither a medical condition nor does it necessarily lead to drug dependence. People who use drugs and people who are dependent on drugs possess the same right to health as everyone else, and those rights cannot be curtailed if the use of drugs constitutes a criminal offence […]

The Special Rapporteur has emphasized that health-care personnel have an obligation to provide treatment on a non-discriminatory basis and not to stigmatize or violate a patient’s human rights. […]

Individuals have sometimes been denied access to medical treatment on the grounds of their prior or current drug use, where evidence does not justify denial of treatment. Such denial has occurred on the rationale that a person’s drug use would make him or her unable to adhere to treatment. The Special Rapporteur notes that adherence to medical treatment is not necessarily lower among persons who use drugs, and should be assessed on an individual basis […]

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,8 the Committee on the Rights of the Child9 and the Special Rapporteur on the right to health have all determined that a harm reduction approach is essential for persons who use drugs. […]

Providing drug users with access to drug-consumption rooms can contribute to preventing the transmission of diseases and to reducing damage to the veins, as well as encourage users to make use of treatment and other services. Drug-consumption rooms have contributed to reducing overdose rates and increased access to medical and social services […]

The lack of needle and syringe programmes, in particular, has a direct impact on the spread of HIV. […]

The Special Rapporteur on the right to health has stated that if harm reduction programmes and evidence-based treatments are made available to the general public, but not to persons in detention, this contravenes the right to health. […]

The Special Rapporteur on the right to health has noted that drug users in States that criminalize drug use may avoid seeking health care for fear that information regarding their drug use will be shared with authorities, which could result in arrest and imprisonment, or in treatment against their will. The use of drug registries (lists of people who use drugs) may deter individuals from seeking treatment, especially given that violations of patient confidentiality have been frequently documented in States that maintain such registries […]

The Special Rapporteur has observed that criminalizing drug use and possession has led to risky forms of drug use designed to evade criminal prohibitions, which has in turn resulted in increased health risks for drug users. […]

He added that criminalizing the dissemination of information, including on safe practices pertaining to drug use and harm reduction, is not compatible with the right to health because it hinders individuals’ ability to make informed choices about their health. […]

WHO has recommended decriminalizing drug use, including injecting drug use, as doing so could play a critical role in the implementation of its recommendations on health sector interventions, including harm reduction and the treatment and care of people who use drugs. UNAIDS too has recommended decriminalizing drug use as a means to reduce the number of HIV infections and to treat AIDS […]

The Special Rapporteur has identified many ways in which criminalizing drug use and possession impedes the achievement of the right to health. He has called for the decriminalization of drug use and possession as an important step towards fulfilling the right to health. [emphasis added] […]

The Special Rapporteur has noted as positive the decriminalization experience in Portugal […]

Restricting access to opioids affects not only the availability of opioid substitution therapy but also three unrelated areas where access to controlled medicines is essential: (a) management of moderate to severe pain, including as part of palliative care for people with life-limiting illnesses; (b) certain emergency obstetric situations; and (c) management of epilepsy […]

Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that, in those States which have not abolished the death penalty, the sentence of death can only be applied for the “most serious crimes”. The Human Rights Committee has determined that drug-related offences do not meet the threshold of “most serious crimes” […]

In some States, it has been reported that accused persons may be given a choice between serving a sentence after conviction or submitting to drug treatment. Bearing in mind the right of a person to refuse treatment, this practice may be a cause for concern, in particular given the level of coercion involved. […]

The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has called for reform to ensure that sentences for drug-related offences are proportionate to the nature of the crime […] The Working Group has found that overincarceration for drug-related offences contributes significantly to prison overcrowding and that overcrowding can call into question compliance with article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees that everyone in detention shall be treated with humanity and respect for their dignity […]

Different forms of discrimination may result once an individual has a criminal record resulting from a conviction for a drug-related offence. These may include obstacles to obtaining employment, adverse effects on the custody of children or visitation rights, losing government benefits such as access to public housing, food assistance or student financial aid, or difficulties concerning travel abroad. […]

It has been reported that members of ethnic minorities, in particular those who are poor and live in marginalized communities, may be particularly subject to discrimination in the context of drug enforcement efforts. In the United States of America, for example, African Americans make up 13 per cent of the population, yet account for 33.7 per cent of drug-related arrests and 37 per cent of people sent to state prisons on drug charges. […]

It has been reported that women who use drugs may, depending on the laws and policies in force, face losing custody of their children, forced or coerced sterilization, abortion or criminal penalties for using drugs during pregnancy.

In every aspect, the drug war violates basic human rights. It’s time for the world to wake up to that basic fact.