Drug WarRant

Part 3 of the Sullum/Stimson debate is online. Will Stimson get any fans?

Argentina Decriminalizes Drug Consumption

A federal court in Argentina has decriminalized the personal consumption of drugs in that country. According to the court‰s ruling, punishing drug users only ‹creates an avalanche of cases targeting consumers without climbing up in the ladder of [drug] trafficking.Š

I couldn’t help myself. I knew better, but I decided to go back to Stoners in the Mist and explore some more of this propaganda. This time, I decided I should know some more about marijuana, so I took the quiz. I didn’t do so well (mostly because I refused to answer the answers that I knew they considered the “right” answer).
Question 1:

Approximately 1 in 10 fatal car accident victims test positive for which drug?

1. Prescription Drugs
2. Meth
3. Marijuana
4. Ecstasy

And, of course, if you choose anything other than marijuana, you’ll get:

Nice try, the correct answer is marijuana.

Studies show that approximately one in ten (12.7%) of fatal car accident victims test positive for THC (the active ingredient in marijuana). Approximately 4 in 10 (41%) fatally injured drivers tested positive for alcohol.*
*Schwilke, Eugene W. et al. “Changing Patterns of Drug and Alcohol Use in Fatally Injured Drivers in Washington State.” Journal of Forensic Science, Septemeber [sic] 2006, Vol. 51, No. 5.

If you actually check out the study, you find that it wasn’t THC that was found in 12.7% of cases, but rather cannabinoids.
And, of course, it means absolutely nothing. Since the cannabinoids remain in the system for a very long time, there is no indication that any of these drivers were even under the influence of marijuana at the time, nor that it was a contributing factor. In fact, it’s likely that 12.7% of the driving population of Washington State in general has cannabinoids in their system at any particular time.
It’s like stating that a certain percent of suicides had undigested hamburger in their system at the time. It doesn’t mean that hamburger causes suicide — just that hamburger is popular and so some of them would have likely eaten one.
On to the next question:

What has more cancer-causing chemicals: marijuana smoke or cigarette smoke?

1. Marijuana smoke
2. Cigarette smoke

You can see where this is going!

Nice try, the correct answer is marijuana smoke.

Marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke.* Other serious lung problems – such as bronchitis and persistent coughs – have been linked to chronic marijuana use.**

This is just outright dishonest sleight of hand. The presence of scary sounding “carcinogenic hydrocarbons” means nothing unless they actually cause cancer. Barbecued meat contains carcinogens. The simple truth is that smoking marijuana does not cause lung cancer. Period.
Question 3

Does smoking marijuana increase a user’s chances of having a heart attack?

1. Yes
2. No

Nice try. The correct answer is “YES.”

A marijuana user’’s risk of heart attack increases by more than four times in the first hour after smoking marijuana.*
*Mittleman MA, Lewis RA, Maclure M, et al. Triggering myocardial infarction by marijuana. Circulation 103(23):2805–2809, 2001.

This one was new to me. Heart attacks? Really? Where are all the news reports of pot smokers dropping dead of heart attacks? So I looked into it.
In the study, 3,882 patients were interviewed after suffering a myocardial infarction. Of those, 9 patients had indicated using marijuana during the hour prior to the event (although 3 of those nine had also had sex or taken cocaine). Note also that they didn’t include any marijuana users who had not had a heart attack. Not much of a heart attack smoking gun.
Question 4:

Marijuana is addictive

1. True
2. False

Nice try. The correct answer is True.

Research has now established that marijuana is addictive.* Each year, more teens enter treatment with a primary diagnosis of marijuana dependence than for all other illicit drugs combined.** Research indicates that the earlier kids start using marijuana, the more likely they are to become dependent on this or other illicit drugs later in life.***

Notice the sleight of hand again here. Nothing in the second sentence has to do with addiction — it’s about referrals from criminal justice to treatment. Can marijuana users be dependent? Sure. But calling it addictive is a gross weakening of the definition of addiction.
Question 5

What are the withdrawal symptoms from marijuana addiction?

1. Dry mouth
2. Irritability
3. Aggression
4. Shaking

Nice try, the correct answer is B and C.

People trying to quit using marijuana report irritability, sleeplessness, and anxiety.* They also display increased aggression on psychological tests, peaking approximately one week after the last use of the drug.**

Ah, so they don’t actually exhibit increased aggression in general, just on being forced to take psychological tests when they’d rather have a joint. Makes sense to me.
Of course, a quiz like this isn’t about facts or information. The cited sources are intended to make it appear all scientific and true, but our government isn’t interested in the truth about marijuana, nor are they interested in sharing the truth with the people. It’s all about pushing propaganda to support the war against marijuana users (which props up their larger war against drug users).
You’ll find a whole lot more truth in BC bud than the ONDCP.

Day 2 of the Los Angeles Times’ “Dust-up” between Jacob Sullum and Cully Stimson on drug policy is now up. It’s turning into a real gem of a series.
The Part 2 question: Do federal raids of legal local marijuana dispensaries violate state sovereignty?
Here, Stimson at least gets it technically right in terms of what the government can legally do given how the Supreme Court has allowed the Constitution to be perverted from its original intent over the years. But Sullum gets it right.
One part of Stimson’s argument really got a little surreal:

But when you disagree with a law, it’s too easy to forget that we have a government of laws and not men — in other words, not a dictatorship but a self-governing democracy. That means that the law applies to each of us equally, so you cannot ignore a law simply because you disagree with it.

First, he’s using the wrong argument for his case and he doesn’t even see it. The issue regarding people using medical marijuana isn’t related to a friction between between imposed dictatorship and democracy; it’s a friction between representative democracy (albeit skewed by political pressure) and individual rights. Nobody is suggesting that someone should dictate to everyone what they must do, but rather suggesting that states and individuals should be free to pursue their will.
Second, it’s harder every day to talk straight-faced about the rule of law as it relates to preventing sick people from taking medicine, when our government ignores the rule of law in so many areas (think FISA).

I experienced a fascinating synergy this weekend that has made me even more optimistic than my normal glass-half-full self.

1. An energized group of young people from colleges all over the midwest converged for a day of speakers and workshops here Saturday. These SSDP activists are bright, compassionate, and determined, and they’re ready to make a difference. They see all the damage of the drug war, and understand the urgency to correct it. As part of that conference, I once again watched a video of clergy speaking out against the drug war and I listened to a former prosecutor with the same message. Powerful.
2. On Sunday, a large group of other students, most with no interest in activism, converged for a free screening of the comedy film “Super High Me.” They were probably stoned — there merely to have a good laugh. And yet, as I watched them and listened to them — I was straight — I realized by the way they reacted that they all know the score. They know when they are being lied to, they know that they are being propagandized, they know the politicians and the DEA are wrong, and they know the truth of the simple message of the movie: “marijuana makes everything more fun.” And that is also valid. In fact, it is by itself sufficient reason to emphatically deny and subvert prohibition.
3. On Saturday night, I experienced a performance event with an eclectic and delightful range of talents. And while I don’t know how many were stoned, it got me thinking of all the creative work I have witnessed that was augmented by cannabis, and how creativity is the building block of true success in the world.

So I came away from this weekend with as mellow a feeling that one can have without actually being stoned. You know the feeling — a languid smile and the little shiver that comes from a deliciously subtle jazz progression.
How can prohibition win against such diverse unstoppable power? It can’t.
Oh, sure, the naysayers will be quick to counter: “We’ve been fighting this for decades and yet we’re still being arrested.” And yes, prohibition won’t be vanquished easily or swiftly.
But now and then, it’s useful and therapeutic to remind ourselves that the end of prohibition is not only possible, but inevitable. Then it’s just a matter of figuring out the best way to put it out of its misery.
Happy 420.

Thousands of Pot Smokers Celebrate 4/20

“bullet” Check out this counterpoint between Jacob Sullum and Charles “Cully” Stimson in the L.A. Times. Sullum, as usual, really has it together and his arguments are really impossible to refute, which is why Stimson apparently has to act like he didn’t even hear them, and instead invent arguments out of thin air.

“bullet” Another mistrial. I talked about this case before. The government is so pathetically desperate to justify their drug war in Colombia by getting drug convictions, they’re spending millions of dollars trying to convict Ricardo Palmera despite the fact that a conviction would add zero time to his sentence. This is the second mistrial.
“bullet” Tom Angell wrote a letter to the Washington Post. Here’s an excerpt:

The April 20 article “From Mexico, Drug Violence Spills Into U.S.”
should have been titled “From Mexico, Drug-Prohibition Violence Spills
Into U.S.”

Exactly.
“bullet” Va. Court Rejects 2 Drug Searches (via The Agitator)
Also, an Alaska Appeals court is cracking down on coercive searches.

Postings have been a bit light the past few days. Let’s see… 63 hours of four-square (to raise money for scholarships), the midwest conference of SSDP, Theatre of Ted (performance event), RockSquare (outdoor rock concert of local bands in conjunction with four-square marathon), Hempfest, “Super High Me” screening, and several events I needed to photograph, plus spending some time with friends…
Anyway, they’ve been good days, and I fully intended to have a special post on 420 on 4/20, but it’s probably going to have to wait until 4/21.
I still need a lot more sleep.
Welcome, Midwest SSDP folks!
What’s been happening?
“bullet” Be sure to check out the brilliant Mutinyblogging Celebrates 4/20
“bullet” 4/20 events not just grass-roots anymore
“bullet” 86.6% of those who try heroin do not become dependent on it within two years of trying it.
“bullet” Drug Sense Weekly
“bullet” “drcnet”

Via Hit and Run — Barney Frank has introduced his Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008, co-sponsored by Ron Paul.
Congressman Frank’s statement:

‹I think it is poor law enforcement to keep on the books legislation that establishes as a crime something which in fact society does not seriously wish to prosecute. In my view, having federal law enforcement agents engaged in the prosecution of people who are personally using marijuana is a waste of scarce resources better used for serious crimes. In fact, this type of prosecution often meets with public disapproval. The most frequent recent examples have been federal prosecutions of individuals using marijuana for medical purposes in states that have voted š usually by public referenda š to allow such use. Because current federal law has been interpreted as superseding state law in this area, most states that have made medical use of marijuana legal have been unable to actually implement their laws.
“When doctors recommend the use of marijuana for their patients and states are willing to permit it, I think it‰s wrong for the federal government to subject either the doctors or the patients to criminal prosecution. More broadly speaking, the norm in America is for the states to decide whether particular behaviors should be made criminal. To make the smoking of marijuana, whether for medical purposes or not, one of those extremely rare instances of federal crime š literally, to make a ëfederal case‰ out of it š is wholly disproportionate to the activity involved. We do not have federal criminal prohibitions against drinking alcoholic beverages, and there are generally no criminal penalties for the use of tobacco at the state and federal levels for adults. There is no rational argument for treating marijuana so differently from these other substances.Š
‹To those who say that the government should not be encouraging the smoking of marijuana, my response is that I completely agree. But it is a great mistake to divide all human activity into two categories: those that are criminally prohibited, and those that are encouraged. In a free society, there must be a very considerable zone of activity between those two poles in which people are allowed to make their own choices as long as they are not impinging on the rights, freedom, or property of others. I believe it is important with regard to tobacco, marijuana and alcohol, among other things, that we strictly regulate the age at which people may use these substances. And, enforcement of age restrictions should be firm. But, criminalizing choices that adults make because we think they are unwise ones, when the choices involved have no negative effect on the rights of others, is not appropriate in a free society.Š
‹If the laws I am proposing pass, states will still be free to treat marijuana as they wish. But I do not believe that the federal government should treat adults who choose to smoke marijuana as criminals. Federal law enforcement is a serious business, and we should be concentrating our efforts in this regard on measures that truly protect the public.Š

“bullet” Via Radley, a letter to the editor that makes my head explode: Quit drug raid grandstanding
“bullet” Stoners in the Mist

I’ve been meaning to post this for awhile — the above is a trailer for ONDCP’s bizarre new flash video/web mockumentary that’s part of the “Above the Influence” campaign: Stoners in the Mist. It’s way too silly to really need outside debunking, but here’s some anyway.
“bullet” Drug war violence out of control in Mexico. But in the up-is-down world of drug war spin, that’s a good thing.

Mexican Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora, however, said that the violence is a sign of the cartels’ weakness “and how these structures as we knew them are collapsing.”

Note the billboard in the picture in the above article advertising for more police officers? Apparently both sides are advertising that way. Lots of job openings…
“bullet” Robert Parry looks at the current administrative and judicial climate and asks Will the Constitution Be Altered to Eliminate Key Liberties? Our reply: Where have you been? The question is not “will it be altered” but “how much more will it be altered.”
“bullet” An interesting counterpoint OpEd series in Montana, which I think helps point out the deficiencies in some opposition arguments regarding drug testing. Check out Drug Policy Is Fear-Based, Punitive by Andy Hudak, followed by Nothing to Hide, Nothing to Fear in Drug Testing by Jeff Bailey. Bailey’s non-arguments actually demonstrate Hudak’s points, even though Bailey can’t see it