Drug WarRant

Via Paul Armentano at the NORML blog…
This has it all: Sensationalism, scare tactics, irrelevancy, and… just plain… bizarre. Bad journalism, bad science, bad government and more.

The BBC is to break one of the last broadcasting taboos by screening footage of a woman injecting drugs.
Nicky Taylor, a journalist, is filmed smoking cannabis in cafes in Amsterdam before injecting the main ingredient of the stronger “skunk” variety of the drug in a laboratory. […]
Miss Taylor was then filmed as the effects of the drug took hold. Dr Paul Morrison, one of the scientists in charge of the programme, told The Daily Telegraph: “I can’t talk about the experiences of any of our participants without their say-so.”
The BBC also declined to provide a detailed account of what happened.
However, one source who has seen the effects on Miss Taylor said: “The effect was dramatic. It was unpleasant.”
The BBC is understood to be keen to show the film on the eve of a decision by Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, to recriminalise cannabis by upgrading it from C to B status. Her decision is expected in the spring.

That’s right. A “journalist” is going to show the dangers of drugs by injecting herself with “the main ingredient of the stronger ‘skunk’ variety of” cannabis.
Yes, that’s a very convoluted way of saying THC.
This is to give “a strong anti-drugs message that will stop people experimenting rather than glamourising drugs use” — apparently by convincing people that shooting up cannabis isn’t a good idea — something that, until this moment, hadn’t been an idea at all.
My prediction: The British Government, fueled in part by stupidity like this, increases the penalties for marijuana. The black market, inspired by this “documentary” responds by developing a more compact, easier to smuggle, pure THC. A year later, the Daily Mail does a sensational report on an alarming new trend — intravenous skunk use.
“bullet” Update: See also this at the Washington Post — with comments (thanks Cannabis).

Sorry to be a bit off-topic here, but check out this disturbing footage of the war in Iraq.
Link (WMV video)
Oops. I was wrong. Turns out this is the war in the United States. Fought against U.S. citizens, and brought to you as entertainment on the TeeVee.
My bad.

This is getting a lot of press right now:

The United States incarcerates more people than any other country in the world and for the first time in the nation’s history, more than one in every 100 American adults is confined in a prison or jail, according to a report released on Thursday.
The report by the Pew Center on the States said the American penal system held more than 2.3 million adults at the start of the year.

Of course, the primary reason, downplayed in most of the press coverage, is the drug war.
This is a good time to remind folks graphically of what we’re doing:
The United States has 5% of the world’s population…

… but 25% of the world’s prison population.

We dramatically lead the entire world in incarceration rates.

Spread the word.

I ran across this intriguing bit from scientists in Heidelberg, Germany. It’s not a proper study — merely an anecdotal incident based on one individual, but it’s still fascinating.
Turns out that they discovered a 28 year old man with ADHD who had a history of ADHD-related driving problems, improved dramatically after smoking pot. The scientists

conclude from their investigation that “it has to be taken into account that in persons with ADHD THC may have atypical and even performance-enhancing effects.”

It’s not enough to prove anything, but it does point out the fact that different people are affected by drugs in different ways.
It reminds me of a good friend of mine in college many years ago. Brilliant man. Theatre major. Unusual brain. As an actor, he never said the same lines exactly the same way twice, yet they were perfectly fitting and he could actually ad-lib Shakespeare in iambic pentameter. We once lost a performance space for a mainstage production the day before opening night and in one day he re-lit the show in another theatre with a totally different configuration and ran the lights for the show by feel without a light plot. He did all of these things while under the influence of marijuana. If you ever ran into him when he was not, he was incoherent.
Everybody’s different. I had another friend in High School who would pass out for 12 hours if she took just half of a simple cold capsule.
This points out the potential problem with determining driving capability by what’s in a person’s blood. It may be better than no method at all, but it’s not an accurate measure of actual impairment.
So what would be?
Here’s my idea, but I need someone out there to invent/develop it (technologically, it seems that we’re pretty close if not already there). Modify regular police cars so that you can, with a switch, change the driving controls to become a full-fledged driving simulator with the windshield turning into a video screen. The simulator would test reflexes and measure driving ability.
Seems to me that this would be a much more accurate measure of impairment than breathalyzers, urine samples, or blood tests. Wouldn’t it?

Daniel Williams — a regular commenter here at Drug WarRant — has thrown his hat into the ring and is working at becoming the Libertarian Party Presidential candidate.

William F. Buckley, Jr. died today at the age of 82. You may have loved him or hated him, but one thing is clear — more than anyone else, he made it cool to be a conservative against the drug war.
My first real exposure to his drug war views was this 1996 issue of National Review (I still have my copy). He regularly spoke out for legalization, particularly of marijuana, and will always have a home in the drug policy reform community.

WE ARE speaking of a plague that consumes an estimated $75 billion per year of public money, exacts an estimated $70 billion a year from consumers, is responsible for nearly 50 per cent of the million Americans who are today in jail, occupies an estimated 50 per cent of the trial time of our judiciary, and takes the time of 400,000 policemen — yet a plague for which no cure is at hand, nor in prospect. […]

I leave it at this, that it is outrageous to live in a society whose laws tolerate sending young people to life in prison because they grew, or distributed, a dozen ounces of marijuana. I would hope that the good offices of your vital profession would mobilize at least to protest such excesses of wartime zeal, the legal equivalent of a My Lai massacre. And perhaps proceed to recommend the legalization of the sale of most drugs, except to minors. [link]

…

I’m in favor of legalization of marijuana not because I’m in favor of people being allowed to do what they want to do but because I think that the war against marijuana is not worth it, that more people are suffering on account of that war than would suffer without it… [link]

…

The War on Drugs Is Lost…. The cost of the drug war is many times more painful, in all its manifestations, than would be the licensing of drugs combined with an intensive education of non-users and intensive education designed to warn those who experiment with drugs. [link]

…

“bullet” William F. Buckley, Jr.’s latin logical fallacy pun about the gateway theory of marijuana (link):

post pot ergo propter pot

“bullet”William F. Buckley, Jr.’s eulogy to Peter McWilliams
“bullet” Buckley also made famous Richard Cowan’s quote:

“One of the problems that the marijuana-reform movement consistently faces is that everyone wants to talk about what marijuana does, but no one ever wants to look at what marijuana prohibition does. Marijuana never kicks down your door in tbe middle of the night. Marijuana never locks up sick and dying people, does not suppress medical research, does not peek in bedroom windows. Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could.”

“bullet” Brian Cook talks about “The Wire”

In a recent story in The Nation, Chris Hayes used 2,200-plus words to argue why progressives should back Sen. Barack Obama. I’ll use only seven: Obama’s favorite TV show is The Wire. It’s certainly true, as Hayes noted, that Obama, like every presidential candidate, won’t be saying one word about the prison-industrial complex or the disastrous consequences of the “war on drugs.” But it’s heartening to think that at least he’s tuning in to one of the few public forums that fiercely drags such issues into our consciousness.

“bullet” A relatively good OpEd in the Wall Street Journal! (not even in the real part, but the usually execrable opinion pages) by Mary Anastasia O’Grady about the drug war in Mexico shows people who actually understand the basic principles of economics.

Under prohibition, only criminals can serve the market for illegal narcotics. And they have a lot of incentive to do so since prohibition pushes prices up. These market dynamics have given rise to transnational crime networks — modern, savvy businesses run by ruthless killers bent on preserving their income. Anyone who tries to get in the way risks becoming a statistic. Last year in Mexico there were 2,713 homicides attributable to organized crime, up from 2,120 in 2006 — according to the intelligence arm of the country’s attorney general. […]
Mr. Medina Mora suffers no illusions about his office’s capacity to shut off the supply of drugs to the U.S., or for that matter in Mexico, where drug use is on the increase. That’s a welcome relief: After decades of a war on drugs claiming thousands of innocent lives, poisoning institutions in developing countries, and raising the incentive for pushing narcotics on children — all the while delivering not a modicum of success — the argument for attacking supply to end demand is by now tedious.
Instead, Mr. Medina Mora is a realist. “The objective,” he says, “cannot be destroying narcotrafficking or drug-related crime, because demand is inelastic.” “It is very important not to lose perspective on the goal,” he tells me. “Trying to get rid of consumption and trafficking is impossible, as a bold objective.”

The entire OpEd doesn’t hold completely together, but still… this is impressive.

“bullet” Radley Balko at FOX: Straight Talk: Should Tax Dollars Be Used to Help Drug Addicts Avoid Overdoses?

We’re told that certain drugs have to be prohibited because they’re too dangerous. But we should also resist efforts to make them less dangerous because doing so might encourage drug use.
It’s a bizarre argument until you consider the real motivation behind it: In truth, it’s not so much about the harm some drugs do; it’s about an absolute moral opposition to the use of some drugs.
Even if they were completely harmless, some people simply don’t like the idea that we can ingest chemicals that make us feel good.

“bullet” This is refreshing. Sheriff cuts ties with MDEA

Sheriff Donnie Smith of the Washington County Sheriff‰s Department has ordered his staff members not to work with the Maine Drug Enforcement Agency until further notice.
Smith made the order in a memorandum that was sent out Friday to his department‰s patrol deputies and other law enforcement officers.
“Until further notice all operations with Maine Drug Enforcement Agency are suspended,” the memo reads. “No personnel from the Washington County Sheriff‰s Office will participate in any operation involving Maine Drug Enforcement.”

Note: It’s not because the Sheriff has decided not to fight the drug war — merely that shenanigans on the part of the MDEA had gotten pretty bad — but still…

A while back, I linked to Paul Armentano’s piece: Making Pot Legal: We Can Do It — Here’s How. At the time, I merely linked without commenting, promising to do so later. That post ended up with an incredible extended discussion in comments.

These are important discussions. But they’re also tricky.

In my theatre management life, I have often cautioned people against having a committee decide what to do to market shows. The reason is that everyone has excellent marketing ideas and there are infinite options, but the staff time and resources for implementation are finite. So a committee finds it very hard to create an effective targeted strategy.

The drug policy reform movement has it even harder, since we are like a loose conglomeration of committees, each with different goals, and each with the infinite options of approach. And unless we can somehow create a centralized world dictatorship of drug policy reform, we’re probably going to have to live with fragmentation of appraoch and ideas.

That doesn’t mean it’s hopeless. Just means we have to do a good job of building cases for effective strategy, while at the same time understanding the strongly-held beliefs of others in the movement. And I’ve seen significant things in the past few years that lead me to believe that it’s possible.

So I thank Paul for his contribution to the discussion. There’s much within that I support. There are also areas where I have a different idea. That’s natural. We’re all at slightly different places. My focus is on overall drug policy reform, with recreational marijuana legalization as one significant part of the equation.

What’s even more critical is that I realize that my views are not going to be held by the majority of the people in this country. I have to remind myself that I have had years of intensive education about the drug war — something they have not. Things that seem obvious to me may not be to them. (And everyone who reads this site is in the same boat to at least some degree.)

So, to end the long-winded intro and get on with it…

Paul starts by identifying four suggestions as to why political leaders have failed to get on board with marijuana law reforms.

1. Media complacency

…To combat this media bias, pot reformers must do a better job providing consistent and resonant messages to reporters, as well as establishing long-lasting, personal relationships with key journalists and opinion makers. Advocates could consider dedicating resources for print and media advertising campaigns to offset the federal government’s anti-drug advertising budget, which annually spends some hundred million dollars in taxpayers’ dollars and matching funds to buy television and radio commercials warning about the alleged dangers of pot.

I fully agree with this point. Particularly that every reform organization needs a strong media relations effort, and that personal relationships with journalists are incredibly important. If you have a strong relationship with and you’re always straight with the journalist, It gives them a secure place to turn for comment when they get one-sided info from the government, and a source for reform-oriented stories. The media simply does not have the time and resources to fully investigate everything — a typical journalist is reporting on a multitude of subjects of which they are ignorant. We have to be there for them.

What individuals can do is to politely thank or admonish journalists as appropriate, and also develop relationships with local media (even the student newspaper on campus).

2. Law enforcement opposition

…The drug law reform movement must engage in greater and more active outreach within the law enforcement community. While some groups are already engaging in such efforts, these actions too often rely on the recruitment of retired members of law enforcement and the criminal justice community. Only by recruiting active members of law enforcement can we begin to build necessary credibility and support among politicians, and provide a persuasive counter to the lobbying activities of various state and federal criminal justice associations.

I like the idea, but I’m skeptical that we can have an active reform presence inside active law enforcement, as long as marijuana is illegal. I think that LEAP is one of the best things that has happened to the drug policy reform movement in recent years, and that they serve to counter the adamant prohibitionists within active law enforcement (with the added fact that in such comparisons, it is the prohibitionists that look like they have personal gain in their argument.) I think that engaging active outreach within the law enforcement community is good, but I think the ultimate goal of such efforts is not to gain support, but to reduce opposition.

3. Victims of pot prohibition lack a public face

Thousands of Americans suffer such sanctions every day — at a rate of one person every 38 seconds. Our movement must do a better job of humanizing this issue to the public by emphasizing the personal stories and tragedies endured by the millions of individual Americans who have suffered unduly and egregiously under criminal prohibition. We must also do a better job of recruiting high-profile celebrities and human rights advocates to publicly speak out on these victims’ behalf.

Personally, I think the pot prohibition victim-population approach is a loser. Now this may be partly because I have so much invested in the more specific drug war victim issue. In my mind, you can never humanize thousands. You have to focus on the individual cases of drug war excess — the Kathryn Johnstons and Tarika Wilsons, for example. Sure, it’s important to bring up the loss of financial aid, opportunities for the future, etc. of groups of people, but when it comes to the thousands of pot prisoners, it’s just too easy for people to glaze over and think “Well, they knew it was illegal…”

4. Victims of pot prohibition lack sufficient political or financial resources

The marijuana law reform movement must do a better job of engaging with organizations working toward racial equality to properly convey to politicians and the public that this issue is about racial justice and fundamental fairness. Additionally, reformers must do a better job allying with organizations that speak on behalf of youth, particularly urban youth — who are most at risk of suffering from the lifetime hardships associated with a marijuana conviction. Finally, reformers must reach out to the parents of young people and urge them to become active members of the cannabis law reform movement, which needs the majority of parents to join its ranks as both financial contributors and as political advocates in order to gain the political support necessary to bring about a change in the country’s pot laws.

This is an ongoing problem. It is always those with less political power who are targeted by drug prohibition. While I think that we’ve come a long way in spreading the word about the racial inequities of drug prohibition, we’re going to have an extremely hard time getting targeted groups to join us (despite their logical self-interest in doing so). Marginalized groups are not going to lead in drug policy reform for fear of appearing to be encouraging irresponsible behavior among their own and thus seeming to be at fault for their hardships. (Note: we may be able to turn this around partially — more on that later in this post, and in terms of the larger category of youth in general, it’s important to note the incredible work of SSDP.)

5. Changing the public’s mindset

A strong majority of Americans — nearly 75 percent — say that they oppose jailing pot offenders, yet fewer than 50 percent support regulating cannabis so that adults no longer face arrest or incarceration for engaging in the drug’s use. Why this apparent paradox? In large part, this ambivalence may be a result of the shortcomings of the drug law reform movement.

This is the absolute key to the problem, and our most important challenge. It is not the legislators who need to be convinced (although that’s part of the job). It is the people who must be shaken out of this ambivalence. Let’s take a look at the myths that Paul says we must counter (read his article for his specific comments):

1. Legalizing cannabis like alcohol will increase teens’ access and use of pot
2. Legalizing cannabis like alcohol will send a public a message that pot is “OK”
3. Legalizing cannabis like alcohol will lead to an increase in incidences of drugged driving

Regarding (A), I agree with Paul’s approach. We have to continually harp on the fact that legalization is the only way to actually control something. (B) — responding by getting across the fact that pot really is OK — is quite limited in effect for reasons I’ll explore in a moment, and (C) — pushing for better testing cannabis-impaired driving is problemmatic.

Regarding cannabis-impaired driving: I understand where Paul is coming from regarding public opinion and am aware of the studies he’s mentioned, but I agree with Jackl that I’m not thoroughly convinced of the significance of the danger. And I’m hesitant to agree to the contradiction of a solution that could further demonize marijuana use, just to improve public relations for legalization. While I am fully in favor of true impairment-based testing (as opposed to the mere presence of metabolites), I think we’ll perversely face huge resistance in implementing such testing until after marijuana is legalized.

Here’s the problem: developing a test to determine the level of marijuana intoxication at which one is impaired will be seen to imply that there is a level of marijuana intoxication that is OK. Prohibitionists (the very ones we’d have to have on our side to implement such testing) will find that “message” anathema.

My analysis

Going back to the issue of paradox of public ambivalence, it boils down to the fact that the people simply don’t consider legalization to be an important issue to them.

All you have to do is spend some time on messageboards (yes, I know that can be painful), and you’ll see the same reaction over and over:

“I know someone who smokes pot and just isn’t making anything of his life. We don’t need this legalized.”

“We have enough problems with alcohol, we don’t need another legal substance out there.”

These are extremely weak arguments, yet they are pervasive — clear evidence that people have not thought through actual ramifications of prohibition and legalization. The majority of people unfortunately see legalization as an unimportant issue. Here’s what’s going on in their heads:

“People can smoke pot anyway or they can drink alcohol, so it isn’t important to invest any effort in leglizing pot, and besides, there’s that guy in his basement throwing away his future getting stoned, so I’m not going to support legalization.

“I smoked pot in college, but I don’t anymore, so it doesn’t affect me.”

“We’ve got important problems in the world. There’s no point investing political capital in something as frivolous as pot legalization.” [see Democrats]

Telling people that pot isn’t so bad isn’t going to solve this problem. People generally know that. They just don’t think that it’s worth going to the effort of legalizing.

Now, it would be nice if the people would recognize that laws against marijuana use are in contradiction to the principles of our country. But as Cliff notes in comments, the people as a whole are not, unfortunately, interested in looking after the Constitution. They want others to do it for them, and may even find the content of it a bit of an annoyance.

So where does that leave us? Self-interest.

We need to take a page from the SAFER campaign. No, I’m not suggesting a national campaign to show that marijuana is safer than alcohol.

What we need to do is show the people that legalization is safer than prohibition.

We need to convince people that marijuana prohibition is endangering their children, robbing their checkbooks, hurting their property values and causing moral decay. We need them to understand that legalizing pot will make their streets safer and eliminate poverty.

You get the idea. Self-interest.

Now that’s not so critical to you or I. We understand what’s at stake. But we forget that the rest of the population doesn’t have our knowledge. We have to shake them out of their drug policy illiteracy.

Wrong approach:

Pot isn’t very harmful. We can protect against drugged drivers. It’s not a proper law. We should legalize marijuana.

Right approach:

Pot prohibition is causing criminals to prey on your children. We must legalize and regulate it NOW to cut back on damage to our cities and our families.

The only way to motivate people enough so that they’ll go past what the government tells them they should think is to make it personal.

Now I happen to believe that one of the best ways to help pot legalization is to push for the larger drug legalization agenda for two reasons:

1. Prohibitionists have used the trick for years when opposing marijuana legalization by lumping it in with all other illegal drugs. We can do the same against them by talking about all the direct and identifiable harms of prohibition in the larger drug war.
2. I believe that marijuana legalization can be helped by pushing for full drug legalization (ie “They make good points about the total drug war, but I’m not sure if I’m ready to support legalizing all drugs, so let’s start with marijuana.”)

[Please note that this doesn’t mean that I advocate lying to people to get them to support us. It’s about telling the truth about the things that matter to them.]
A little plug for my own efforts… The work I’ve been doing with the so-called “Elevator Arguments” works well with this analysis. It’s all about identifying those interests that specific groups of people have and targeting a drug policy reform message towards those interests. And since the drug war negatively impacts so many aspects of society, it’s not hard to do.

Again, I thank Paul for the article, and I remind people that all this is just my opinion. I’m interested in all your reactions. And let’s keep the conversation going.

Delightful OpEd by Peter Christ in the New York Star Gazette: Don’t Tax Drugs, Legalize Them
Good all the way through. The conclusion nails it nicely.

Some point to alcohol Prohibition as the prime example of how a prohibition fails. I choose instead to draw upon a far older example. When Adam and Eve were living in the Garden of Eden, surrounded by paradise with all their needs met, there was only one thing prohibited to them. Yet, in spite of their perfect existence, they couldn’t resist that one temptation. I ask you, if God can’t enforce prohibition, what makes us think we can do better?

It’s all political — it’s all a way to promote his drug war…
In this article, Walters blames U.S. marijuana users for “contributing” to the bloody wars in Mexico.
Here, he says that U.S. prosecutors need to go after more of the low and mid-level marijuana offenders, including those where the evidence isn’t that strong.
However, here, he claims that the Mexico drug fight is success and is driving up prices (with the unfortunate side-effect of additional border violence).
Each of these articles was also an opportunity for Walters to ask for more money for the drug war.
I think it’s fair to say that these bodies aren’t a result of America pot-smokers, or prosecutors gone mild, or any kind of success. If they’re going to haunt anyone, it’ll be the drug warriors.