Drug WarRant

Two studies:

1. A major study by a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years. Funded by the United States National Institutes of Health’s National Institute on Drug Abuse. Largest study of its kind involving 2,240 people. Conclusion: No evidence of any association between marijuana and lung cancer, and even a suggestion of a protective effect
2. A tiny study by a relatively new research institute in New Zealand. A grand total of 79 patients studied for both marijuana and tobacco. Reported conclusion: greater risk of cancer from one joint a day of marijuana than a pack a day of tobacco.

Guess which one the White House likes.
I haven’t had access to read the second study (although I’m suspicious based on other flawed studies related to marijuana from the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand). But, of course, unless they can possibly explain the lack of bodies from marijuana smokers with cancer, the study of 79 people is pretty much worthless.
Transform gets quoted in the BBC article, pointing out the potential problems related to the mix of tobacco and marijuana. On the other hand, nobody was mentioning the definitive Tashkin study, which is disturbing.

Tonight, I gave my Elevator Arguments presentation to the Illinois State University chapter of SSDP. It’s always a lot of fun.
The idea is to develop the skill of being able to make an argument for drug policy reform quickly (in the time you might have riding with someone on an elevator). And not only that — but to target your argument to the interests of your audience.
Whenever I give this presentation, I start by letting the audience put me on the spot. They can yell out a description of a person, and I have to immediately give a short argument for why that person should support drug policy reform.
Tonight they hit me with:

• Treatment Specialist
• Conservative Parole Officer
• Mother who lost a child to drug overdose
• Tobacco Company Executive
• Restaurant Owner

There were a couple of others, I believe. Then I have the group break up into small groups and create their own 30-second arguments (they get a little more time than I do to prepare) and then have one person come up and give the presentation.
If you’ve got a group (or just some friends), this is a fun thing to do, and it makes you better at speaking on the fly when an opportunity comes along.
Here’s a simple handout (pdf) that I pass out to provide some starting points.
If you’re interested in listening to the Elevator Arguments workshop that I helped present at the International Drug Policy Conference in December, you can listen to the entire workshop here (scroll down to Elevator Arguments). My part starts at 18:30 into it, and I do some of the on-the-spot arguments as well. (If anyone listens to it, let me know how it is — I can’t bear to listen to myself.)
On a separate note, the Illinois State University SSDP will be hosting the Midwest Regional conference in April. They will hold a Hempfest on the Quad on Friday April 18, and then the conference on Saturday, April 19 (to conclude on 4/20) If you attend a school in the midwest, consider organizing a group to come. Of course, everyone is welcome to attend any of the conference sessions (and I’ll have more information available here later). We have some good presenters lined up (but would love to hear suggestions for more).

Radley has the update:

Ryan Frederick was arraigned today. He was charged with first-degree murder, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and . . . simple possession of marijuana.
That‰s right. Though police still haven‰t told us how much marijuana they found, it wasn‰t enough to charge Frederick with anything more than a misdemeanor. For a misdemeanor, they broke down his door, a cop is dead, and a 28-year-old guy‰s life is ruined. Looks like the informant mistook Frederick‰s gardening hobby for an elaborate marijuana growing operation, and those Japanese maple trees for marijuana plants.

Although Radley Balko’s been on top of this one, I haven’t talked about it yet. I’ve been waiting for a little more information, and it’s coming painfully slow. That, in itself, can lead one to suspect that there is some fishiness in the case. Regardless, it appears certain to me that police officer Jarrod Shivers is a Drug War Victim.
Shivers was shot and killed (shot once in the chest) while serving a drug warrant at the home of Ryan Frederick. Frederick has been charged with first-degree murder.
Here are some details that are surfacing to date:

• Frederick claims to have been defending his home, having had a break-in the previous week (and says the police told him they knew he had a break-in and knew who did it).
• The warrant, based on information from an informant (it’s looking a lot like the informant was the one who broke into Frederick’s house), was for a large sophisticated marijuana grow operation in a detached garage. The police, after a very long delay and a second search, claim to have seized some lights and some marijuana (but no indication of seizing any quantity — a sure sign that they only found some smokables).
• Frederick is into gardening and landscaping and was growing both tomatoes and young Japanese Maple trees (which look like this).
• Frederick has no record, and admits to being a recreational pot smoker and having a small amount (3 joints) in his home. This is in general supported by statements of family and neighbors.
• Police say that they announced before their forced entrance. Neighbors never heard it.
• The city manager today will apparently announce that the police department “will undergo a top-to-bottom examination including looking into procedures, policies and equipment used by the force.”

This one is looking really ugly.
So in Lima, Ohio, we have a mother shot to death by a cop. In Chesapeake, Virginia, we have a cop shot to death by a homeowner. Both of these are cases of drug war victims.
Quite frankly, I’m not qualified to judge whether Frederick was in the right or not, in the context of the situation, when he shot and killed Jarrod Shivers. I’m also not qualified to judge whether Sgt. Joseph Chavalia was in the right or not, in the context of the situation, when he shot and killed Tarika Wilson. I wasn’t there, and I don’t have all the facts.
However, I am qualified to judge that a major, despicable crime occurred. In both cases, the system of justice and the social contract was twisted, perverted and subverted in ways that predictably caused the deaths of innocent people.
We need to root out those criminals, those organized criminals who prey upon our country by creating laws where none should exist and then enforcing them with military tactics against their own people with no accountability.

“bullet” Communities that feed on prisons. Jeralyn at TalkLeft talks about the New York Times article. Unions, the prison industry, and prison communities are fighting to keep prisons open and stocked because they’ve got their entire existence pegged to prison income.

Count me among those with no sympathy. America’s over-incarceration policies mean corporations make billions and the federal government throws millions to these communities in subsidies.

“bullet” Careful with the hand sanitizer. They purposely make that stuff to smell good. But if you’re 14 and you put some on your hands in school, don’t notice that it smells good, or you may be fingerprinted and charged with delinquency for inducing “a condition of intoxication, hallucination and elation.”
“bullet” Mark Draughn riffs off my FEAR card post and creates his own FEAR credit card.
“bullet” A man wins the lottery (just $1,000) and the police seize the ticket, saying it was purchased with drug money. This could be quite a scam — if they get away with it, you can bet that the big lottery winners will be getting some major scrutiny from police.

Mark Kleiman points to an excellent NPR story about an incredible, easy-to-use nasal spray that can save lives when applied quickly after a heroin overdose.

The nasal spray is a drug called naloxone, or Narcan. It blocks the brain receptors that heroin activates, instantly reversing an overdose.
Doctors and emergency medical technicians have used Narcan for years in hospitals and ambulances. But it doesn’t require much training because it’s impossible to overdose on Narcan.

Studies have showed the benefit and safety of its use and many lives have been saved. The ONDCP, however, has, of course, objected to making Narcan available to heroin users.

Dr. Bertha Madras, deputy director of the White House Office on National Drug Control Policy, opposes the use of Narcan in overdose-rescue programs.
“First of all, I don’t agree with giving an opioid antidote to non-medical professionals. That’s No. 1,” she says. “I just don’t think that’s good public health policy.”
Madras says drug users aren’t likely to be competent to deal with an overdose emergency. More importantly, she says, Narcan kits may actually encourage drug abusers to keep using heroin because they know overdosing isn’t as likely.

Mark Kleiman correctly notes the moral depravity of the ONDCP’s stance:

The Office of National Drug Control Policy is working hard to make sure that opiate addicts keep dying of overdoses. […]
Why not just go all the way and poison the heroin supply? If withholding Narcan in order to generate more overdoses in order to scare addicts into quitting were proposed as an experiment, it could never get past human-subjects review. But since it’s a failure to act rather than an action, there’s no rule to require that it be even vaguely rational.

Absolutely. So far, so good, for Kleiman. But then, as usual, he has to drop all pretense of academic integrity and retreat into his pathetic pseudoskeptic persona with this bizarre backhanded compliment:

I get angry at the people who call themselves the “drug policy reform movement” for their insistence that we could make more drugs legal without having more addiction. But unlike their counterparts in the equally reality-challenged but politically dominant “drug-free America” movement, the “drug policy reformers” lack the power to kill in the service of their dreams.

Note the use of the belittling “who call themselves” generalization. Once again, Mark takes a perfectly good post about the problems with drug warriors, and for no good reason (and no relevance to the post), slams reformers. And, as usual, mischaracterizes the arguments of reformers.
Yes, some drug policy reformers (myself included) believe that, while drug use may go up in a legalization scenario, it is likely that abuse of drugs will remain relatively the same or even go down. This is supported by the fact that legalization would provide implementation of better regulation, more focus on treatment, safer drugs, increased likelihood of seeking help, substitution of one drug for another, reduction of black market methods, and more societal focus on problem drug abusers rather than diluting efforts by going after all drug users. These are real, legitimate arguments that can’t be dismissed by Mark’s patently absurd view that the numbers of those who abuse legal alcohol can be used to project how every legal drug will be abused.
However, the even more important (and relevant) view that pretty much all drug policy reformers hold is that the overall harms related to drugs and drug prohibition will be greatly reduced under a regulated legal market compared to a prohibition-fueled black market regime. This can’t be refuted.
[Interestingly, Kevin Drum picks up the story, in an passing post about the ONDCP’s view, but his readers also catch the rest of it pretty well in comments (Kleiman’s site no longer accepts comments).]
Kleiman’s off-handed non-critique as usual fails to deal with the fact that legalization and regulation can mean a whole lot of different kinds of options. Mark seems to intellectually know this, as he will go on ad nauseam on a wide variety of bizarre regulatory schemes (see drinking licenses) in this books and writings, yet not apply time-tested regulatory approaches when calculating the cost/benefit ratio of prohibition versus legalization. For that matter, he doesn’t even like making that calculation, because that would give legitimacy to the thought of legalization.
OK, Mark — you want to talk policies? Specific policies?
Let’s talk about a legalization approach to heroin, since that’s the subject of this post — heroin maintenance. Have the government provide safe controlled doses of heroin to all those who are dependent on heroin. Heck, make it free of charge (you could easily to so by buying cheap heroin in Afghanistan and because of the the enormous savings from reduced health care, enforcement, and prison costs).
Would this work? Yes. Would it, in fact, reduce the rate of heroin addiction? Yes. How do we know? Because the Swiss have been doing it for years. No, they weren’t able to do it in full scale as a complete legalization approach due to pressure from the U.S., but they were able to do it in a significant sample of the most hard-core heroin users (whom most would agree are the true problem group). This is something I’ve talked about before, but I’ve been hoping for updated information on the Swiss approach.
Fortunately, LEAP’s Howard Wooldridge has done a tremendous service by putting together Swiss Heroin-Assisted Treatment 1994-2008: Summary, which has been approved by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health. It’s worth printing here in full:

Overview: Due to the severe drug problem in Switzerland in the early 1990s, (rising number of injection drug users, visibility of open drug scenes, AIDS epidemic, rising number of drug related deaths, poor physical health, high criminality) the Swiss made a fundamental shift in approaching the problems caused by heroin addiction. The Swiss offer treatment-on-demand. Of an estimated 22,000 addicts, 16,500 are in treatment and 92% are given daily doses of methadone at conventional clinics. The Swiss treat about 1300 addicts with maintenance doses of heroin via 23 special clinics operating in cities and two prisons. The Swiss approach has resulted in lower rates of crime, death, disease, a drop in expected new users as well as an improvement in mental and physical health, employment and housing. The program has been copied by six countries: Germany, Holland, Belgium, England, Spain and Canada.
* To qualify for a heroin prescription: 1) at least 18 years old; 2) been addicted (daily use) for at least two years; 3) present signs of poor health; 4) two or more failed attempts of conventional treatment (methadone or other); 5) Surrender drivers license; 6) Heroin can only be obtained at the clinic and must be consumed on site (oral or injection). (Note: Under strict control and specific criteria [for example full employment] a few are allowed to take one oral dose daily away)

1. Patients can receive up to three doses of heroin per day. 60% take the heroin via needle injection, the rest via pill. The use of the oral pill is increasing.
2. Patients average about three (3) years in this plan. However, they may stay in treatment indefinitely. 20% of original patients are still in the program.
3. The vast majority of patients are satisfied or very satisfied with the program.
4. Average age of patient: 38 years.

*Crime Issues: 60% drop in felony crimes by patients. 82% drop in patients selling heroin.
*Death Rates: No one has died from a heroin overdose since the inception of the program. The heroin used is inspected for purity and strength by technicians.
*Disease Rates: New infections of Hepatitis and HIV have been reduced for patients in the program.
*New Use Rates: Lower than expected.

1. As reported in the Lancet June 3, 2006, the medicalisation of using heroin has tarnished the image of heroin and made it unattractive to young people.
2. Most new users are introduced to heroin by members of their social group and 50% of users also deal to support their habit. Therefore, with so many users/sellers in treatment, non-users have fewer opportunities to be exposed to heroin, especially in the rural areas.

*Cost Issues: 48 dollars/day: Patients pay from zero to 12 dollars per day depending on their ability. Note: About 30% of patients work for a living and pay part of the costs. Note: The Swiss save about 30 dollars per day per patient mostly in lowered costs for court and police time, due to less crime committed by the patients.
** This summary was taken from five published reports. The Swiss Federal Office of Public Health reviewed and approved its release. Additional questions should be directed to Dr. Dora Fitzli, the science and health advisor to the Swiss Ambassador at the Embassy. Her English is near native fluency.
NOTE: This summary was researched and written by Howard J. Wooldridge of LEAP.

Prohibitionists and prohibitionist enablers don’t want to believe that any form of legalization can work. They firmly believe that problem users won’t quit unless they are coerced, and so they mindlessly support prohibition. Even if that were true (and the evidence isn’t clear that coercion works better overall), it would be better to live with a group of well-managed hard-core drug users than to continue the massive evils resulting from prohibition.

Update: Ethan Brown notices Kleimans’s problem as well.

From the Drug Czar: Students Push For Random Drug Testing

No surprise, but still…

The Bush administration announced yesterday that it is seeking $200 million to help cities fight violent crime, citing as one of its reasons, the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s decision to give convicted crack cocaine offenders a chance for an earlier release.
Speaking before the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said that “a sudden influx of criminals from federal prison into your communities could lead to a surge in new victims as a tragic, but predictable, result.”

Of course, there will be no “sudden influx” (release will be spread over many years and they still have to get a judge to agree for each release, which federal prosecutors have already said they will fight).
But the truth doesn’t matter — all that matters is profiting by making people afraid.

“bullet” Jacob Hornberger says that Lou Dobbs should take responsibility for the death of a border agent.

What Dobbs fails to comprehend, however, is that he himself, along with other supporters of the war on drugs, are morally responsible for the death of that Border Patrol agent. That is, Dobbs and other drug-war supporters cannot escape moral responsibility for the agent‰s death by simply pointing to the legal (and moral) responsibility of the drug dealers who killed him.
“Dobbs and his drug-war cohorts just cannot let go of their beloved war, not even when it has gone on for more than three decades, with nothing but death, destruction, corruption, and failure to show for it.”
If the drug war had been ended years ago, as libertarians have long advocated, there would be no more drug gangs and drug lords. Those types of people survive and prosper only in black markets, not regular markets. If drugs were legalized, the people selling drugs would be pharmacies and other normally operating businesses, just as they were before U.S. officials made the sale and distribution of drugs illegal.

“bullet” Interesting article from the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, which puts Walters’ recent outburst against Chavez in some additional perspective:
Colombia: The Blitz is On

A prime weapon in the U.S. inventory to reduce Ch½vez to size and build up Colombia‰s President Uribe is a recent government-funded report produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), which claims that the South American nation, Colombia, is safely ‹back from the brink of crisis.Š But in terms of its conceptualization and implementation, the contracted document and the campaign surrounding its publication raises serious questions. These include the conservative organization‰s objectivity due to its longtime advocacy of Plan Colombia, and its vigorous support of the pending free trade pact with Bogot½.
The CSIS Colombia project is more about being part of a well-timed public relations campaign than about bona fide research.

“bullet” Richard Holbrooke, former ambassador says we’re Still Wrong in Afghanistan

“I’m a spray man myself,” President Bush told government leaders and American counter-narcotics officials during his 2006 trip to Afghanistan.æ He said it again when President Hamid Karzai visited Camp David in August.æ Bush meant, of course, that he favors aerial eradication of poppy fields in Afghanistan, which supplies over 90 percent of the world’s heroin.æ His remarks — which, despite their flippant nature, were definitely not meant as a joke — are part of the story behind the spectacularly unsuccessful U.S.æ counter-narcotics program in Afghanistan.

“bullet” If you’re on Facebook, consider donating $10 so that SSDP can earn $10,000.
“bullet” A student newspaper at Arizona State University goes a little deeper into the drug trade than most I’ve read.
“bullet” “drcnet”

Recently, the Drug Czar’s office has, interestingly, cut way back on the marijuana rhetoric in order to focus on the cause du jour: prescription drug abuse. Of course, their office spouts statistics saying that teenage use of marijuana is down and prescription drug abuse is up, but as we know, they are adept at cherry-picking statistics to promote whatever they wish.
So I’m suspicious of the true agenda here.
But it sure seems like they’re going all out on this. They were even planning on a Presidential statement in the Roosevelt Room about it, until the Heath Ledger death caused them to delay it (due to fears that it would appear that the President was using Ledger’s death for political purposes, despite the fact that the cause of his death is still indeterminate).
And apparently, the Drug Czar’s going back to the SuperBowl!

The White House drug office will use its first Super Bowl spot in four years to caution that the biggest teen drug danger could be the legal medicines stored in parents’ medicine chests. […]
The Super Bowl spot, to air at the close of the first half, features a drug dealer complaining that his business is down because teens are getting high from abusing drugs in the medicine cabinet. [you can watch the video at the site]

I admit to being at a bit of a loss here. Getting out a message to parents to keep prescription medicines out of the hands of kids doesn’t seem like a bad idea.
But this is the Drug Czar. I can’t help but think that there’s something I’m missing.