Drug WarRant

“bullet” Look, I’m no fan of Chavez, so it really says something that I am more likely to believe him regarding the drug war than the credibility of our own government.

President Hugo Chavez accused the United States on Sunday of sending Colombian right-wing paramilitary forces into Venezuela to destabilize border areas and arm shantytown gangs in the capital Caracas.
With his most concrete charge to date in a months-old diplomatic dispute with Colombia, Chavez said the U.S. ally supported the campaign that also included selling cocaine to buy support in slums.

“bullet” Travel guru Rick Steves creates a half-hour infomercial-style program: “Marijuana: It’s Time for a Conversation.” (Rick has long been a supporter of legalization.)
“bullet” How do you host an AIDS conference without including drug user communities? That question is becoming a major issue for an upcoming regional AIDS conference in Moscow, since Russia bans the use of methadone and buprenorphine.
“bullet” Shorter Mexican Bishops: People should stop being greedy for drug profits and instead give money to the church so the church can continue supporting the drug war that makes drugs profitable.
“bullet” “drcnet”

I have to say that I’m not a big fan of the bloggingheads concept. I just personally prefer to read at my own pace than watch bad video of people talking, and it’s so hard to skim video.
But I did want to check out this bloggingheads.tv piece: Crime and Punishment with Mark Kleiman and Glenn Loury. Mostly I focused on the last section on prohibition, where Mark, as usual, simultaneously slams and defends prohibition, in seemingly incoherent ways. Once again, he does his cocaine/alcohol dance when it comes to legalization, where he “demonstrates” that legalization of cocaine will cause the increase of cocaine abuse to the level of alcohol abuse, while also causing an increase in alcohol abuse.
Here was the closer — and the most bizarre argument against legalization possible.

But there are things we can do about drug policy that would reduce the number of people in prison, and the extent of drug abuse and drug related crime. Legalization isn’t one of them because there’s not public support for it. And if we acknowledge the fact that, from the point of view of the majority of the population it’s a loser, um, then it’s not as if we can talk them out of that, so I think the legalization debate is mostly a distraction from doing the real work of fixing our drug policies.

If the majority doesn’t support something, then there’s just no point talking to them about it? What kind of mindless crap is that? Apparently the only proper way to debate something is if people already agree with you.

As Bill disembarked today, we caught his eye, and I was close enough to shout, “You promised Jacki Rickert you’d get her Medical Marijuana in 1992.”

Some friends picket President Clinton.

I don’t write nearly as many Letters To the Editor as I should — I tend to get busy enough posting here, but now and then something spurs me to respond. This article by Judy Guenseth in the Galesburg Register-Mail did it. My letter in response: Legalizing pot adds control was published today.

Keep in mind that LTEs are a great way to get exposure for drug policy reform. If you need some suggestions, ideas, help in letter-writing strategy, good examples, etc. simply visit The Media Awareness Project. The equivalent advertising value of the letters published by MAP folks last year totaled over $2 million. Not bad for free.

The Marijuana Policy Posse has created a new video to address the age-old question my most popular page has been discussing for years: Why is Marijuana Illegal?

It’s telling that so many of us have discovered what a tremendous need there is out there for the answer to this question. In the past month, my Why is Marijuana Illegal page has had 123,192 pageviews, representing over 3/4 of all traffic to my site.

NORML’s Paul Armentano has a lengthy, detailed article at AlterNet: Making Pot Legal: We Can Do It — Here’s How. Definitely worth reading. What do you think of his roadmap/conclusions?
Update: Link working now. I got sloppy with my html.
P.S. I plan to do an extended response to this article at a later time, but I’m interested in getting your feedback first this time.

If you’re on Facebook, you can become a fan of Drug WarRant.

The recent spate of bad studies regarding marijuana (involving ridiculously small samples and horribly flawed methodology) with nicely scary conclusions (marijuana causes cancer, marijuana causes addiction, marijuana causes gum disease) have been, of course, accompanied by bad reporting.

None as funny as this one from a student newspaper.

Young people who are heavy smokers of cannabis, a substance found in marijuana, could be at a significant risk for gum disease, according to a study released Tuesday. [emphasis added]

Fortunately, Bruce Mirken has taken on the quackery in Latest Anti-Pot Quack Science: ‘Marijuana Makes Your Teeth Fall Out’

“bullet” Jesse Jackson will be in Lima, Ohio tomorrow to discuss the racial tensions regarding the drug raid shooting of Tarika Wilson and her son. Hopefully the visit won’t neglect the necessary discussion regarding the tactics of drug raids, which also exist outside of the racial dimension.
“bullet” The drug war has gotten so screwy that we sometimes become inured to the absurdities, but now and then an article just hits me and I think I’ve slipped through to another dimension.
This came from one of my former haunts – Keokuk, Iowa. See if you can spot the absurdities.

Chris-topher A. Matous, 23, 3000 S. Seventh St., was charged with conspiracy to manufacture less than five grams of methamphetamine, a Class C felony. If convicted, Matous could face up to 10 years in a state correctional facility.
The arrest stems from an investigation by the task force into allegations Matous was involved in the manufacture of methamphetamine in the Keokuk area.
He was arrested Thursday following a traffic stop for a driving offense by Keokuk police. Investigators later searched the vehicle and found items that indicated the manufacture of and/or use of methamphetamine.
Task force Commander Dave Hinton said Matous had a knife in his possession.

Here are some oddities that I see…

1. “conspiracy to manufacture less than five grams of methamphetamine” — what does that mean?
2. “items that indicated the manufacture of and/or use of methamphetamine” — what does that mean?
3. “face up to 10 years” – no drugs, no sale, no manufacture, plans to manufacture less than 5 grams (whatever that means) = 10 years?
4. “The arrest stems from an investigation” that culminated in a “traffic stop for a driving offense.” Huh?
5. “Task force Commander Dave Hinton said Matous had a knife in his possession.” And…?

I’m scratching my head here.
“bullet” The idiots at the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) have gotten their panties in a bunch regarding the medical marijuana vending machines, which is simply absurd, since there’s no practical difference between a dispensary employee vending medical marijuana to a licensed patient and a machine doing the exact same thing.
“bullet” Dave Frank with the Nevada Appeal discusses the medical marijuana situation in Nevada Federal government stands in the way of a state-run medical marijuana distribution

Tom Angell got a nice letter published in the Chicago Trib yesterday.

But it’s absolutely wrong of Chapman to say, as he does in the column, that endorsing this common-sense policy change “would be considered political suicide” for a presidential candidate like U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).
To the contrary, a CNN/Time Magazine poll taken in 2002 shows that 72 percent of Americans support marijuana decriminalization.
Obama’s latest position opposing decriminalization will only win him favor with the mere 19 percent of Americans who, according to the poll, favor the continued arrest and jailing of otherwise law-abiding citizens who happen to use marijuana.
Supporting the criminalization of responsible adults is not only a senseless and cruel public policy, it is politically foolish.

It’s a good letter that is both right… and wrong.
It was the right letter to write. The right letter for people to read. It was right in its underlying facts. But probably wrong in its conclusion.
If Presidential politics had any kind of logic or reason to it, then the fact that the majority of people support decriminalization would lead to the conclusion that supporting decriminalization is a good political choice. But it never works that cleanly.
if Obama came out in support of decriminalization the population would, in general, factually support it. But would that be the population that he needs to win over to get the magic numbers? And how would the opposition deal with it?
I could write the ad myself…

Scene: dark shots of inner city streets with black drug dealers conducting transactions, junkies shooting up and slumped in doorways, etc.
Voice: America faces a continuing epidemic of drugs in our streets, endangering our communities and families. Every day, thousands of young people are snared by these dangerous drugs and many will die.
Barack Obama wants to make illicit drugs even more available to our children and tie the hands of law enforcement efforts to make our cities safe.
Scene: Sunny suburban community park with kids and dogs playing, mothers with strollers, etc.
Voice: John McCain cares about families and children and vows to keep dangerous drugs out of our communities…

You get the idea…
The best thing about drug policy emerging in Presidential politics is not that a potentially successful Presidential candidate is actually going to embrace reform in speech or action. No, the best thing is that it gets the rest of the country talking.
I have no delusions that we’ll get a President to lead. But having Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich talking about drug policy, and Obama’s drug past coming up, and candidates addressing sentencing disparity has been great in terms of getting these issues in the public spotlight.
Ultimately, when it comes to electing a President, it’ll have little to do with facts or good policy. I was struck with Atrios’ recent post (depressingly cynical, yet true)

As the season progresses and I read my 4 millionth “I CAN’T POSSIBLE VOTE FOR AND/OR SUPPORT CANDIDATE X” post/diary it’s useful to remind us all that presidential politics is not a contest to woo your little narcissistic self, it’s a contest to get 50%+1 of the electoral college votes.
And most people do little to “support” any of the candidates. Many do, of course, give money and time. But most don’t. It takes away from all that time spent bitching about the world online.
That being said, you are free to stay home and not vote. You are free to withhold what time and money you may have otherwise been willing to give for a different candidate. But nobody gives a shit. It’s not about you.

I recently attended a Democratic gathering in Illinois, and was amazed to see how, while being careful not to say it publicly, they were 100% supporters of Obama. I was puzzled for a moment, and then someone explained it to me. If Obama is the nominee, then the Democratic turnout will be much higher in Illinois (Obama’s state), which means that local Democratic candidates are more likely to be elected. It wasn’t just about what Obama stood for, it was about political opportunity.
I guess what I’m saying is… Fight for good candidates. Try to inform them about drug policy. Try to make them talk about drug policy. But don’t look for rationality or logic in their positions. Don’t expect leadership.
Leadership comes from the people.