Drug WarRant

Last night — just a typical Friday night college party in Normal, Illinois, with the police using knives to break into bedrooms without a warrant.

They conducted a 3-hour search, but no drugs were found.
I’m particularly fond of the officer’s gracious reply — “Shut up!” — after the student respectfully calls him “sir.”
The video is in one of the back bedrooms. The report I heard was that the entry into the main apartment was also forced despite denial of consent.
Note: I was not there, so if the Normal PD would like to provide their own explanation or more information, I’m listening.
Update: The residents have confirmed that the police did not have a warrant. They have approached the Normal PD office and were told that since they didn’t have any footage of the police illegally entering the main portion of the apartment that it’s simply their word against the cops’ and they have no case against the police.
I’ve been told by one source that once the police were in the apartment, they had the right to break into the bedrooms for “safety” reasons, but I don’t know enough about the specific laws there.
Regardless of the technicalities of the law (and I still believe that the police have broken it dramatically), there is a matter of showing respect to the citizens whom you are supposed to protect and serve.

Link (Via Baylen)
The next big scandal in sports comes from a statement made on radio by Dallas Mavericks forward Josh Howard. Howard explains:

“What I was stating was just [in response to] a random question he asked me about the marijuana use. I just let him know that most of the players in the league use marijuana and I have and do partake in smoking weed in the offseason sometimes and that’s my personal choice and my personal opinion. But I don’t think that’s stopping me from doing my job.”

He’s not using marijuana during the season, and he hasn’t flunked any drug tests.
So now the league and the press are scrambling to find how you punish someone for… um… telling the truth.

Mavericks owner Mark Cuban said before Friday’s game against the Hornets that any punishment from the club will be meted out “internally.”
“We won’t make it public,” Cuban said. “But we’ll deal with it.
“We’ll do what we need to do and deal with it internally and then that’s it.”

What really bugs them is that he is matter-of-fact and unrepentant about it.

The Sean Bell case ends up with acquittals on all charges. Apparently nobody did anything wrong.

“bullet” Action Alert: Contact your representatives and have them support the federal marijuana decriminalization bill.
“bullet” Dust-up, Day 5: Drug Policy from Scratch. Stimson reaches deep into his rectum and pulls out the Nixon/Linkletter argument.
“bullet” Drug Sense Weekly
“bullet” “drcnet”

You may have thought the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) was merely a sadly delusional chapter in our nation’s history. And yet, every now and then I see a letter to the editor in the local paper signed by someone who calls herself head of the local WCTU chapter.
What I didn’t realize (until I read Allen St. Pierre’s post today) was that they also take a position on marijuana.
At their marijuana ‘facts’ page you can learn a number of interesting things, including:

long-term marijuana users experience withdrawal symptoms such as stomach pain, irritability, and aggression. […] Sudden heart attacks have been linked to pot smoking […] Loss of fertility in both males and females may occur. Marijuana can disrupt testes and uterine function. In males testosterone levels and sperm counts can decrease and abnormal sperm form. Menstrual periods have ceased in females who use pot regularly. […] fathers who smoked pot might increase the chances of their babies dying from SIDS. […] Marijuana use is a major risk factor in the development of full-blown AIDS in HIV-positive persons. HIV marijuana smokers progress to full-blown AIDS twice as fast as non-smokers. […] Chronic use results in adults being four times more likely to be depressed later in life and to have suicidal thoughts. […] In a 1999 report of 664 drug-related deaths, 187 of them resulted from marijuana use alone. […] A scientific study of airplane pilots showed their inability to properly land a plane using a flight simulator even 24 hours after smoking one joint. […] As of January, 2001, the Mississippi Research Center for the National Institute on Drug Abuse had on record more than 15,000 studies on cannabis. None of them show the raw material marijuana to be safe or effective for medical use. […] Many of the state-based referendums on medical marijuana have been supported and funded by individuals and organizations who favor decriminalization and legalization and who would profit from producing and selling marijuana.

If I didn’t know the damage that this organization has done to the country historically, I would merely consider this nothing more than a group of deluded oddballs who are completely and hilariously wrong.

It’s delightful entertainment over at the LA Times, because we so seldom get to see prohibitionists in any kind of debating forum, and Stimson is a textbook case as to why that is. It’s no contest at all — Jacob Sullum hardly has to try.
Today’s question is about violence.
While Stimson admits that legalization could bring about a reduction in prohibition-related violence, he say that won’t help us at all.

Here’s the rub, though: If you impose high taxes, a gray market will inevitably be created, and along with it will come violence. If you impose no taxes, and thus the price remains low, there will be rampant consumption and the predictable, attendant violence and social dislocation that go hand in hand with consumption.

Did you catch that? Apparently the only options are excessively high taxes or no taxes. You see, I would have thought that maybe the idea was to come up with a method of taxation that would fall short of encouraging a gray market.
But let’s assume that we are politically unable to do anything else. Are we really to believe that grey-market violence is anything like black-market fueled violence? Sure, there are criminals that get involved when one state taxes cigarettes too high, but does anyone actually worry about Los Zetas putting severed heads on stakes in order to protect their tax-free Virginia Slims territory?
And as far as the “violence and social dislocation” that will occur with the increased drug use that comes from untaxed legalized drugs, what exactly is Stimson saying? And how does he support it? What’s going to happen? Are the newly added casual marijuana users going to be mixing it up? Or will it be the harder drug users who no longer have to steal to support their dependence?
There’s no evidence that drug-related (as opposed to prohibition-related) violence would increase with legalization, even if there was significantly increased use. In fact, there are many reasons that even drug-related violence would be reduced (law enforcement focused on violence rather than drugs, greater emphasis on getting help for those who need it, etc.
The dishonesty of Stimson’s argument is staggering. According to him, there is no point in getting rid of prohibition-related violence, because even if we do, we’ll have grey-market violence or drug-related violence. The quantity or nature of the violence seems to be irrelevant to him.
Now here’s the way I see it. Let’s call the level of drug-related violence that exists today a “3.” And let’s say that the grey-market violence that we’d see if taxation was too high might be a “4.” On that scale, I would place prohibition-related violence at around “27.” (In Mexico, “63”)
Let’s say that untaxed legalization caused drug-related violence to double (something I think highly unlikely). Let’s compare our options:

1. Today: Prohibition violence (27) plus drug violence (3) = total violence (30)
2. Grey-market: Grey-market violence (4) plus drug violence (3)=total violence (7)
3. Legalization with no taxes: Drug violence (6)=total violence (6)

So why shouldn’t we legalize?
Of course, these are rather arbitrary numbers, but they’re a lot more accurate than Stimson’s nonsense.

“bullet” Sean Mullins’ “The Ballad of Kathryn Johnson” is available for 99¢ on iTunes or at Amazon. As Radley says:

And it‰s good! Well, the music is good. The lyrics wander around a bit, and don‰t really tell what actually happened. But hey, it‰s a good pop song about a botched drug raid. I‰m not going to complain.

“bullet” Scott Morgan has discovered a handy guide for teens to obtain prescription drugs. It’s put together by the Drug Czar. And it’s a nifty site.
“bullet” California Brewery faces federal fines for putting the name of its town on its bottle caps. The Mount Shasta Brewing Company is located in Weed, California.

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.