Drug WarRant

Link

Two North Dakota farmers, who filed a federal lawsuit in June to end the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) ban on commercial hemp farming in the United States, had their case dismissed by federal Judge Daniel Hovland yesterday. In a 22-page decision, Judge Hovland wrote that the problem facing state-licensed hemp farmers David Monson and Wayne Hauge needs to be addressed by Congress if they hope to ever grow the versatile crop which is used in everything from food and soap to clothing and auto parts.

They’re considering an appeal.

I’m really looking forward to the conference next week. Starting to plan out the workshops I want to attend and blog about (a couple of them, unfortunately, are at the same time as the one I’m co-presenting with David Guard). Lots of interesting ones, and lots of people I’m looking forward to seeing again, or meeting in person for the first time.
I didn’t realize until today that next Thursday’s keynote session features Antonio Maria Costa, Executive Director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). He’s a diehard prohibitionist and propagandist (here’s an example of his writing). Having him at an international drug policy reform conference should be… interesting, to say the least. He is balanced by Kasia Malinowska-Sempruch, Director of the International Harm Reduction Development program at the Open Society Institute (OSI).
I’ll be sure to pass on all the fireworks to you.

Yesterday, Allan noted that a letter of his had been commented on by Drug Watch International.
That threw me. The name Drug Watch International had a slightly familiar ring, but I couldn’t place it and knew nothing about it. That in itself was startling. An international prohibitionist group that has gone unmentioned in my blog in the four years I’ve been writing? How is that possible?
So I looked them up. Not much there there. Most of the pages haven’t been updated in years, and it seems that all they really do is release a newsletter one to four times a year. Their principles include such things as:

• Support strong laws and meaningful legal penalties that hold users and dealers accountable for their actions.
• Support efforts to prevent availability and use of drugs, and oppose policies and programs that accept drug use based erroneously on reduction or minimization of harm.
• Support International Treaties and Agreements, including international sanctions and penalties against drug trafficking, and oppose attempts to weaken international drug policies and laws.
• Support efforts to halt the legalization/decriminalization of drugs.

Yep. They’re hard core.
They had one newsletter this year (the only one I looked at). Most of it was regurgitating propaganda from other sources, but they seemed to start with a couple of feature articles.
First was a special article about the presentation of the Drug Watch… FREEDOM award!
On March 18, 2007, they presented this special Freedom plaque (there’s a picture of it) to Dr. Gabriel Nahas for a book he wrote in 1986 about the hazards of marijuana called “Keep Off the Grass.” Nahas’ wife was also there…

Marilyn Nahas read several congratulatory cards and letters from people who recalled important milestones in her husband’s life and his crusade against drug abuse. She reminded everyone that “Gabby” often was fiercely and ruthlessly attacked for his views by those seeking to legalize drugs, especially marihuana, and that in the early years he often stood alone, backed only by parents and early activists in what we call today the preventionists’ movement.

Freedom award!
Then there was the Hemp Report from the chair of Drug Watch International’s Hemp Committee with a host of catchy slogans:

• “It’s the stalks, stupid!”
• Hemp: Where there’s rope, there’s dope.
• NO state or country in the world has scientifically established the safety of food products made from hemp.
• North Dakota officials have been convinced to jeopardize what they hold most dear — the safety of their children, families, communities, and even their country.
• …safeguards can’t be put on fatty human cell walls to protect them from toxic, fat-loving THC found in food, cosmetic, and other products made of Cannabis hemp/marijuana.
• Potential harm to children from chemicals in hemp/marijuana is reported in national and international official government documents, which say that the toxic, bioactive cannabinoids in hemp/marijuana can affect and/or delay the growth and development of children.

Wow. These folks are really ’round the bend.

Rob at To the People notes that the Drug Czar’s blog is really stretching for material with this post touting that “Next week’s Time magazine highlights the latest evidence of marijuana’s harm as part of their “Year in Medicine” news coverage…” when in fact Time’s “highlight” was a single sentence in part of a larger story.
Rob’s right — the Czar is really reaching on this one. Particularly since the ONDCP blog already covered the non-story back in July
So what is this startling and damaging information about marijuana that’s worth all this fuss? According to Time Magazine: “A single marijuana cigarette has the same effect on the lungs as smoking up to five cigarettes in succession.” According to the drug czar blog: “Time Magazine: One Joint=5 Cigarettes” According to the drug czar blog in July: “Smoking just one marijuana joint is the same as smoking five cigarettes in terms of the damage it does to your lungs, a new study found.” And back in July, the Reuters article had an alarmist headline: “One cannabis joint as bad as five cigarettes”
So, what’s up? The Medical Research Institute of New Zealand discovered that the chronic lung disease emphysema was found in 18.9 percent of cigarette smokers, but only 1.3 percent of marijuana smokers. It also found that both tobacco and marijuana cigarettes had an effect on blocking lung airflow, with one joint causing as much difficulty as 2.5 to 5 cigarettes. (And we already know, separately, that marijuana doesn’t cause lung cancer.)
So one marijuana joint is equivalent in airflow issues to 2.5 to 5 cigarettes. Let’s say a normal smoker tends to smoke about 25 cigarettes a day. If a marijuana smoker is going solo on 5-10 joints a day, they need to get some better pot. Or use a vaporizer.
So what have we learned? Marijuana is far, far better for you than cigarettes because of the reduced likelihood of lung cancer and emphysema. And to protect your lungs even more, be sure to stick to avoid ditch weed and if you have any issues with breathing, use a vaporizer.

For a number of Presidential campaign cycles, the drug war got about as much coverage as philately. Other than the Granite Staters’ tireless work questioning candidates about medical marijuana and the obligatory “Did you ever smoke pot” debate question with all the candidates lying about whether they did/whether they did successfully/whether they enjoyed it, the drug war was absent.
These days, however, the topic is even more popular among the candidates than numismatics.
Now we’ve got John Edwards criticizing the war on drugs.

America needs to reconsider its punitive approach to “the so-called war on drugs,” presidential candidate John Edwards said here today.
“We’re not going to build enough prisons to solve this problem,” he told a crowd of about 800 at Grinnell College.

And Hillary Clinton even traveled an almost perceptible distance away from the extremes of wishy-washy-ness.

She also supports using U.S. funding to support proven harm reduction efforts – including needle exchange – to help hard-to-reach populations, and will continue to support new evidence-based prevention methods as additional scientific research helps us understand how to best address this epidemic.

It’s almost as though some politicians are starting to get the idea that supporting the drug war as it currently exists doesn’t really help them.

Thailand. This is beyond tragic.

At a brainstorming session, the representative from the Office of Narcotics Control Board yesterday disclosed that some 1,400 people were killed and labelled as drug suspects though they had no link to drugs.
“The government’s drug policy was unclear. Operation staff hence did everything to achieve the goal of reducing the number of drug traffickers,” the representative said. “The death toll was highest in February when the policy was first implemented. The number of deaths came down in the next two months.”

I don’t subscribe to Stratfor, so I couldn’t read the entire article, but the teaser is a whopper:

The RC-26B’s Importance in Fighting Drug Traffickers
Nov 27, 2007
The RC-26B aircraft has been vital to U.S. counternarcotics operations along the Mexican and Canadian borders. The aircraft, however, is becoming increasingly popular for use in humanitarian missions and counterinsurgency operations, which could threaten its use in the fight against drug traffickers.

How dare they divert precious drug war resources!

“bullet” Interesting Cannabis Thread over at Daily Kos. Grassroots liberals understand that the lack of leadership within the Democratic Party on changing marijuana laws is sending some of their young people to the Ron Paul camp.
“bullet” Drug War cheerleader and former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert is officially gone as of this morning. Don’t let the door…
“bullet” Mark Kleiman is a “legalizer.” Link

Marijuana should be legalized for personal use and free distribution, Mark Kleiman told delegates at the 2007 conference of the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
“Not everybody has a green thumb, so you could get your pot from your friend,” Kleiman, a professor of public policy at UCLA, said in a later interview. “Do I think people would sell it? Of course they’d sell it and I couldn’t care less. I don’t want the billboards.”
The goal of drug policy should be to limit the damage from drugs — such as disease, accidents, crime and social functioning — not to wage “cultural warfare” on drug users, Kleiman said.

“bullet” As always, Stop the Drug War has some interesting posts. Scott Morgan’s Does Marijuana Make You Better at Sports?, David Guard’s Republicans Try Marijuana at Higher Rate Than Democrats
Scott also highlights probably the most inane drug response by a Presidential candidate (McCain):

Look, I’ve heard the comparison between drugs and alcohol. I think most experts would say that in moderation, one or two drinks of alcohol does not have an effect on one’s judgment, mental acuity, or their physical abilities. I think most experts would say that the first ingestion of drugs leads to mind-altering and other experiences, other effects, and can lead over time to serious, serious problems.

Setting aside the incredibly vague use of the word “drugs” (a term that includes alcohol and caffeine), I don’t know what’s more bizarre — that he believes this, or that he thinks the country is stupid enough to believe this.

There’s a lot being written about this “fringe” candidate recently, and in some pretty high places. And it’s not just about him, but about the movement his candidacy has spawned. Witness the mostly excellent article by Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie in the Washington Post (and also picked up by other papers)

…it’s clear that a new and potentially transformative force is growing in American politics.
That force is less about Paul than about the movement that has erupted around him — and the much larger subset of Americans who are increasingly disillusioned with the two major political parties’ soft consensus on making government ever more intrusive at all levels, whether it’s listening to phone calls without a warrant, imposing fines of half a million dollars for broadcast “obscenities” or jailing grandmothers for buying prescribed marijuana from legal dispensaries.

Of course, here at Drug WarRant, we’ve been very interested in Paul, if for no other reason than the fact that he is head and shoulders above every other candidate when it comes to drug policy. Yes, there are other good candidates for drug policy reform — most notably Kucinich and Gravel — and the entire Democratic pack has, though not without some caveats, indicated their support for ending federal medical marijuana raids. But nobody else has come out with Paul’s firm resolve and historical consistency for ending the drug war.
Paul has also attracted some strong support from thoughtful sources who don’t agree with many of his views, with articles like this one from the outstanding Glenn Greenwald.

There are, relatively speaking, very few people who agree with most of Paul’s policy positions. In fact, a large portion of Americans — perhaps most — will find something in his litany of beliefs with which they not only disagree, but vehemently so. Paul has a coherent political world-view and states his positions clearly and unapologetically, without hedges, and that approach naturally ensures greater disagreement than the form of please-everyone obfuscation which drives most candidates. […]
Yet that apparent political liability is really what accounts for the passion his campaign is generating: it is a campaign that defies and despises conventional and deeply entrenched Beltway assumptions about our political discourse and about what kind of country this is supposed to be. […]
Regardless of one’s ideology, there is simply no denying certain attributes of Paul’s campaign which are highly laudable. There have been few serious campaigns that are more substantive — just purely focused on analyzing and solving the most vital political issues. There have been few candidates who more steadfastly avoid superficial gimmicks, cynical stunts, and manipulative tactics. There have been few candidates who espouse a more coherent, thoughtful, consistent ideology of politics, grounded in genuine convictions and crystal clear political values. Here is what Jon Stewart said to Paul on The Daily Show:

You appear to have consistent principled integrity. Americans don’t usually go for that.

And yes, there has been vehement disagreement. Some of it is legitimate disagreement with Paul’s viewpoints on immigration, foreign affairs, abortion, etc. Some is disagreement based on the intellectually dishonest tactic of taking a principled position against federal government intrusion and calling it a hatred of education, the environment, etc. without looking at the entire picture of a balanced libertarian argument. And some is character assassination through attempting illegitimate smears and the politics of association with unsavory supporters (something that I understand a little too well, having been an “unsavory supporter” of a candidate in the past). Glenn Greenwald has also addressed some of the smears in this post.
But what about the legitimate differences you may have with some of Paul’s positions. Are these not sufficient reasons to dismiss him? In my view, no.
First of all, in the reality of politics, his candidacy still has no realistic chance of succeeding. Which means that fears over whether President Paul will somehow overturn Roe v. Wade are premature. Even in some fantasy-based alternate universe, where Ron Paul becomes President, the notion that Congress would bend down and drop their pants for him like they have for Bush is beyond the realm of Sci-Fi. A Ron Paul presidency would probably be four years of vetoing Congress, which would mean that our law-happy representatives would need a 2/3 majority to pass any more laws subjugating us. Doesn’t sound bad to me. Even Ron Paul has often stated that many of his positions are idealistic and couldn’t happen overnight. No President, for example, has the power (yet) to walk into office and abolish the IRS. But a President with Paul’s views, while being unable to single-handedly end the drug war, would be able to force the nation to start talking seriously about reform (and could certainly directly affect how the drug war is prosecuted by the federal government).
Supporting Ron Paul, even knowing he has little chance of winning the Presidency, also insures that important topics are debated in this election cycle. Without Paul, we’re likely to have nothing but poll-driven pablum and politically crafted ambushes. (And unlike Kucinich and Gravel, Paul has been able to get noticed, partly due to his fervent supporters, and partly due to the fact that he is a Republican so clearly at odds with where the Republican Party has gone.)
But there’s one additional reason to support Ron Paul.
In recent years, the United States has undergone a very frightening lurch toward authoritarianism. Checks and balances have been weakened drastically. The concept of government of/by/for the people is considered quaint. And now there is no major party even pretending to care about reigning in the power and size of the federal government.
These are reasons why Ron Paul must and cannot win.
Sure, there are a couple of candidates saying some of the right things. Chris Dodd’s Restoring the Constitution Act is an important baby step. But Ron Paul really believes in the Constitution. And without that, we the people don’t even get a chance to insure that our voices are heard on other important issues, such as foreign policy, immigration, and abortion.
Update: Peripherally related: See Matt Simon’s article today Kucinich ‘Admires’ Paul, Says Drug Problem Requires ‘Compassion and Wisdom’.
Further update: Speaks for itself

In today’s Washington Post: Cellphone Tracking Powers on Request by Ellen Nakashima

Federal officials are routinely asking courts to order cellphone companies to furnish real-time tracking data so they can pinpoint the whereabouts of drug traffickers, fugitives and other criminal suspects, according to judges and industry lawyers.
In some cases, judges have granted the requests without requiring the government to demonstrate that there is probable cause to believe that a crime is taking place or that the inquiry will yield evidence of a crime. Privacy advocates fear such a practice may expose average Americans to a new level of government scrutiny of their daily lives.

Of course, those who have been following drug policy for awhile know that all you have to do is say the magic word “drugs” and the Constitution becomes nothing more than a suggestion — something to follow when convenient — an arcane historical document that is discussed briefly in High School, but has little practical relevance.
Watch how easily it slips into a coma.

The issue is taking on greater relevance as wireless carriers are racing to offer sleek services that allow cellphone users to know with the touch of a button where their friends or families are. The companies are hoping to recoup investments they have made to meet a federal mandate to provide enhanced 911 (E911) location tracking.

So, first note that the government is requiring tracking capability. Then check out this opinion:

Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein of the Southern District of New York, approving a request for cell-site data, wrote that because the government did not install the “tracking device” and the user chose to carry the phone and permit transmission of its information to a carrier, no warrant was needed.

Yes, all you need to do to protect your rights is to stop participating in society. How frightening. Under that reasoning, the government has free reign, without a warrant, to look at any information you provide to any private company.
The information age requires us all to make decisions as to how much information we want to give out — to our friends, our families, our doctors, our banks, our retailers, our internet service providers, and more. But it shouldn’t be a blanket authorization for the government to step in and assume that they are entitled to all information we give anyone else.
Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd is one of the more confused people in this article. At one point he says:

“We strongly recommend that prosecutors in the field obtain a warrant based on probable cause” to get location data “in a private area not accessible to the public,” he said. “When we become aware of situations where this has not occurred, we contact the field office and discuss the matter.”

Sounds good. Until…

These judges are issuing orders based on the lower standard, requiring a showing of “specific and articulable facts” showing reasonable grounds to believe the data will be “relevant and material” to a criminal investigation.
Boyd said the government believes this standard is sufficient for cell-site data. “This type of location information, which even in the best case only narrows a suspect’s location to an area of several city blocks, is routinely generated, used and retained by wireless carriers in the normal course of business,” he said.

But one of Boyd’s comments really pushed my buttons. I think he meant it well, but I tire of this vapid excuse of a nonsense phrase:

“Law enforcement has absolutely no interest in tracking the locations of law-abiding citizens. None whatsoever,” Boyd said.

That is an absolute lie. And it is the lie that feeds the virus on the Constitution.
Unless law enforcement has decided to now only seek out people who have already been convicted of a crime then they absolutely are interested in tracking law-abiding citizens. Because in the course of investigating, they are not targeting criminals, they are targeting suspects. And some suspects are guilty; some are law-abiding citizens. This weaselly deceitful notion that law enforcement only goes after the guilty apparently assumes that law enforcement officers have been granted God-like powers of omniscience. Most decidedly not true.
The rights retained by the people, some of which are enumerated in the Constitution and its amendments, are rights to protect the citizens — that’s why they are so important. Statements claiming that law-abiding citizens need not fear government intrusion are merely the words of a parasite paralyzing its host prior to feeding.