Drug WarRant

Robin was a medical marijuana patient and activist in Montana. For 22 years she suffered the ravages of systemic lupus, a condition that involved unrelenting constant pain and numerous severely debilitating side-effects. She was allergic to most prescription drugs her physicians tried, and only medical marijuana brought enough relief to make her life bearable.
Despite her status as a medical marijuana patient, the DEA seized her medicine last spring (which is when this video was shot). Since then, it’s been harder for her to get what she needed and caregivers have been understandably afraid to supply her.
Yesterday morning, Robin ended her life.
Peace be with you.

Over at Alternet, Paul Armentano has a hilarious (and very true) piece: ‘Pot 2.0’: Where Can I Get Some?

So let’s review, shall we? Our federal government wants Americans to get off the pot. So they spend billions of dollars outlawing the plant and driving its producers underground where breeders clandestinely develop stronger and more sophisticated herbal strains than ever existed prior to prohibition. The Feds then go out and inadvertently give America’s pot farmers billions of dollars in free advertising by telling the world that their weed is more potent than anything Allen Ginsberg, Tommy Chong or Jerry Garcia ever smoked in their heyday. In response, tens of millions of Americans head immediately to their nearest street-corner in search of a dealer (or college student) willing to sell them a dimebag of the new, super-potent pot they’ve been hearing about on TV.
Perhaps it’s time for the DEA to heed their own advice and “just think twice.”

It’s… smokin’…

“bullet” Robert Sharpe letters

The drug war doesn‰t fight crime. In fact, what it does is it fuels crime.

“bullet” Jonathan V. Last loves the drug war, and thinks that Canada should get some more of it.

ONE OF THE UNTOLD successes of the Bush administration has been the progress made in the fight against illegal drugs.

Right.
Last is a Weekly Standard editor, and I’ve mentioned this moron and Walters sycophant before.

Director John Walters is not the type to go running for the nearest TV camera. Yet the quiet success he has overseen is a powerful reminder that the bad guys are not 10 feet tall; that failure is not inevitable; that the war on drugs is a war worth fighting; and that we’re fighting it well.

“bullet” Drug Sense Weekly
“bullet” “drcnet”

For those who were not aware, Governor Schwarzenegger bowed to pressure and vetoed the hemp bill in California.
Well, this got the drug czar all excited in his “blog” with the bizarre entry: Terminated! Gov. Schwarzenegger Vetoes Pro-Drug Hemp Bill
Scott Morgan has already responded: Someone Tell the Drug Czar That Hemp Isn’t a Drug, but I couldn’t resist as well, because the entire post is classic ONDCP doublespeak — probably written by one of the big guys there (probably Riley) and not just an intern.
So let’s take a look:

While drug legalization groups extol hemp as some kind of miracle-plant, many Americans aren‰t getting the full story. Industrial hemp and marijuana are not just “related” — they come from the same cannabis sativa plant.

1. Note the use of “drug legalization groups.” Of course, they’re not the only ones, but he paints it as a special interest thing this way.
2. “…extol hemp as some kind of miracle-plant” is a set-up in terms of language for a counter-point, and yet no actual counter-point is given — it’s just worded in an ominous way. It’s like saying “Some people say that brownies taste great, but in fact, they’re actually made with chocolate.”

The real agenda of hemp enthusiasts is to legalize smoked marijuana and it is no coincidence that legalizing hemp would complicate efforts to curb the production and use of smoked marijuana by young people.

Again, notice the use conjoined statements that have no connection, but are merely used together to sound conspiratorially ominous. And not even the slightest attempt is made to justify the statements, both of which are extremely weak. Also note the gratuitous use of the phrase “young people.” Apparently law enforcement is too dumb to differentiate between hemp and marijuana, even with labs to test for THC content (and regulations for growing hemp). This stupidity will cause cops to somehow assume that any marijuana being grown (and destined for use by young people) must be industrial hemp and so should be ignored. Following this reasoning, the drug czar must be looking into outlawing hibiscus as well.

California Governor Schwarzenegger understands this, and that’s why he vetoed a bill that would have made the drug more available. He also made this point:

“Under federal law, all cannabis plants, regardless of variety or THC content, are simply considered to be ‘marijuana,’ which is a federally regulated controlled substance,” he said, adding that failure to get a permit to grow it could lead to criminal charges.” [AP]

Governor Schwarzenegger understands what? That cops are too dumb to identify regulated plants, and because of that, we need to deny farmers additional opportunities for livelihood while we import hemp from other countries?
Then note how the drug czar approvingly links to Arnold making the point that there’s no difference between industrial hemp and marijuana under federal law. This is another way that the drug czar lies. He knows that the CSA specifically exempts industrial hemp from Schedule 1, but by linking, he lets Arnold make the fraudulent claim even though his link is a lie — a specific intent to deceive.
In their lawsuit (pdf) against the DEA for growing hemp in North Dakota, Monson and Hauge note the specific language in the Controlled Substances Act that excludes industrial hemp.

The term ”marihuana” means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether
growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such
plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or
preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. Such term does not include the
mature stalks of such [cannabis] plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt,
derivative, mixture or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin
extracted therefrom), fiber, oil or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plantá.

21 U.S.C. Û802(16)(emphasis added). In fact, the express exclusion of hemp stalk, fiber, oil and sterilized seed was adopted by Congress more than 60 years ago in order to make clear that Congress‰ intention was only to regulate drug-cannabis and that it did not intend to interfere with the legitimate hemp industry.

(For more on the North Dakota case, visit VoteHemp.)
Back to the czar’s “blog.”

Marijuana is not a harmless substance. Public health experts know that cannabis is much more powerful today than it was 30 years ago and has been proven to be psychologically addictive. If we are to make the drug problem in America smaller, we must push back against the forces that spread misinformation and promote policies that would lead to increased use of dangerous drugs.

OK, you should be adept at spotting it by now. Note the first two sentences. See how he combines “not a harmless substance” with “more powerful today.” Even though there’s no evidence at all that any actual increase in potency has any negative effects (since marijuana use is self-titrated.) And psychologically addictive? Sounds bad, but just about anything can be psychologically addictive (eating, work, running, video games, etc.)
The last sentence? Again you’ve got the completely unfounded ominous combination (industrial hemp=lead to increased use of dangerous drugs). And then…
Well, I like to think of this as a personal response. I may be reading too much into it, but… Just about a week ago, I published this piece about how the drug czar is required by law to lie. It got picked up by digg and got a ton of visibility. (See Scott Morgan’s piece on how digg and other internet viral modes help get our message to lots of people.) And now the drug czar warns of the “forces that spread misinformation.”
Hmmm. Right.
“bullet” Bonus round: In this CNN story, can you spot the tactics?

The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, however, is skeptical because of the burden hemp would place on law enforcement resources. Also, hemp advocates are regularly backed — sometimes surreptitiously — by the pro-marijuana movement, the office alleges.
“ONDCP cautions that, historically, the hemp movement has been almost entirely funded by the well-organized and well-funded marijuana legalization lobby,” said spokesman Tom Riley. “All we do is ask people not to be naive about what’s really going on here.”

“bullet” Laugh of the day comes from DEA spokesman Michael Sanders who claims that the DEA has no interest in policy — it only enforces the laws.

“When it comes to laws, we don’t have a dog in that fight,” he said.

“bullet” I continue to be a big fan of Glenn Greenwald’s work in exposing the authoritarian movement in this country. While he generally is not talking specifically about the drug war, there is common cause — the drug war is authoritarian in nature, and is used by authoritarians for increasing their power.
In a recent post about ill-conceived legislation to provide amnesty for telecoms, Glenn talks about the rule of law.

And our opinion-making elite is eagerly defending this — insisting that while the poor irrelevant souls who buy and sell drugs near the corners of their offices are real criminals and those people belong in prison, our nation’s telecoms and other high officials, when they get caught breaking the law, should have special laws written decreeing that they are immune from all consequences.

When so many people in this country are arrested and imprisoned based on unjust and unfair laws and enforcement, while others in the corridors of power are rewarded for lying and lawbreaking, there’s no wonder that large portions of the population lose faith in the rule of law.
Greenwald quotes Thomas Carothers:

Respect for the law will not easily take root in systems rife with corruption and cynicism, since entrenched elites cede their traditional impunity and vested interests only under great pressure.

And of course, as respect for the law diminishes (as a result of both unfair laws/enforcement and the hypocrisy of those in power), those tasked with enforcing the law, faced with an uncooperative public, are pushed to greater extremes of confrontation, becoming enemies of the people (and escalating the cynicism even more).
Every now and then I hear someone “counter” reformers by saying “Drugs are against the law. End of story.” as if the very act of passing a law constituted the rule of law. (And, in fact, many of our lawmakers seem to be under the impression that their job is to “rule” people by passing a lot of laws.)
But the rule of law is much more important. It is the judicious use of just and fair laws, equally applied.
The drug war is a corruption of the rule of law, as are the authoritarians in our midst who seek to impose their power on others.

“bullet” 5 Myths About That Demon Crack by Craig Reinarman in the Washington Post — a good reminder of the falsehoods that continue to circulate about crack and make it more difficult to get true sentencing reform.
“bullet” U.S. plan for drug war has some in Mexico worried – Critics of $1.4 billion aid proposal fear the money will bring Mexico’s drug-fighting strategy under American control.
Ya think?

While the military’s involvement was initially meant to be temporary, the aid plan could give it a permanent role. According to published reports, 40 percent of the money in the aid package would go to the military, and the rest would go to police agencies.

The front page article in today’s Independent (UK) is going to stir things up a bit (Transform has a picture of the cover and will have more coverage).

One of Britain’s most senior police officers is to call for all drugs — including heroin and cocaine — to be legalised and urges the Government to declare an end to the “failed” war on illegal narcotics.
Richard Brunstrom, the Chief Constable of North Wales, advocates an end to UK drug policy based on “prohibition”. His comments come as the Home Office this week ends the process of gathering expert advice looking at the next 10 years of strategy.
In his radical analysis, which he will present to the North Wales Police Authority today, Mr Brunstrom points out that illegal drugs are now cheaper and more plentiful than ever before.
The number of users has soared while drug-related crime is rising with narcotics now supporting a worldwide business empire second only in value to oil. “If policy on drugs is in future to be pragmatic not moralistic, driven by ethics not dogma, then the current prohibitionist stance will have to be swept away as both unworkable and immoral, to be replaced with an evidence-based unified system (specifically including tobacco and alcohol) aimed at minimisation of harms to society,” he will say. […]
the 30-page report, entitled Drugs Policy — a radical look ahead, includes a number of persuasive voices. Today Mr Brunstrom will urge his colleagues to submit the paper to Westminster and the Welsh Assembly. […]
He argues that prohibition has created a crisis in the criminal justice system, destabilised producer countries and undermined human rights worldwide. By pursuing a policy of legalisation and regulation, he concludes, the Government will “dramatically reduce drug-related criminality and will enable significant funds to be transferred from law enforcement to harm reduction and treatment procedures that are known to work.”

Unfortunately, most of the political establishment is unable to even coherently address the points made by such proposals and simply rejects them out of hand. But eventually we’ll reach a point where that rejection will cost them, and in the meantime, articles like this Independent cover will educate some more people.
Update: North Wales Police Authority endorses report

For those interested, the production of “The Who’s Tommy” that I’m musical directing and performing in is going extraordinarily well, with crowds on their feet cheering at each performance. Here’s a portion of a review:

“Visually stunning and swiftly paced… beautifully costumed, expertly choreographed and technically superior, this production is a theatrical “trip” well worth taking… The live band led by music director Pete Guither rocks the house!”

– Pantagraph, October 9.

“bullet” Joshua Levy at techPresident has an interesting post on the rise of video lobbying, as demonstrated by the YouTube video collection of Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana. Certainly, that Romney video had to have hurt him.
“bullet” Howard Woolridge has a new blog entry up about his efforts on the Hill. Always enjoyable.
He’s also added his post from September 28, which includes this pointed reference to the Congressional Black Caucus:

Shake my head: On Friday I attended the annual seminars put on by the Congressional Black Caucus. The issue was gangs, violence and drugs. I listened for hours as 10 experts bemoaned the growth in gangs, their violence and the link to illegal drugs. No one had the courage to say the obvious, so I did:
The Drug War is the most immoral, dysfunctional policy since slavery. The black community was first butchered by slavery. Then, they were terrorized by Jim Crow. In the ë60s about the time Jim Crow ended, the country began the war on drugs, which took the place of Jim Crow. The growth of gangs and their violence is a direct result of drug prohibition. The policy gives a job option for 15 year olds to sell drugs on the sidewalk, which gets them killed. I hope one day soon the Congressional Black Caucus will pass a resolution calling for the end of the war on drugs. The policy should be: if you have a drug problem, see a doctor, not a prison.
The 80 people in the room gave me a nice applause. The experts and members of Congress did not applaud. Later an African-American came up and said mine were the most salient comments made during the entire seminar. At the wine and cheese reception thingy afterwards, another 6 or so said my ideas were spot on. As I rode the Metro back to my pickup truck, I kept racking my brain about how to get my message out so that the leaders and gatekeepers would actually take action. Any ideas?

“bullet” Drug Sense Weekly
“bullet” “drcnet”

This is actually a story from some time ago, but it’s been sitting around nagging me to write something about it.
I’m really not that familiar with Amy Winhouse’s music, nor have I a clue about the tabloid music stories related to her, but I was struck when reading this.

Amy Winehouse’s in-laws have urged fans to stop buying her records. They say a boycott would send a message to the singer and husband Blake Fielder-Civil that they must tackle their drug problems. Fielder-Civil’s parents, Giles and Georgette, fear one or possibly both of them will die if they do not sort themselves out.
They said the couple were drug addicts in denial.
Mr and Mrs Fielder-Civil also said the singer should not be given any awards, to show the couple’s behaviour was not acceptable.
He believed they were taking crack, and there had been instances of heroin use.

How bizarre. I have no idea if the couple are addicted or abuse drugs, but if they are addicts, the notion that suddenly losing the support of their fans would help them in kicking the habit is one of the stupidest things I’ve heard. “Oh, dear,” Amy apparently would say, “our record sales are plummeting and nobody likes our music. Let’s stop using drugs.”
When I hear this kind of thinking, I wonder if it’s really possible that people don’t know anyone who smokes cigarettes. Cigarettes are one of the most addictive drug habits around, and if you ask anyone who smokes/smoked if there’s a time when it’s toughest to quit, or most likely to re-start, it’s invariably in times of stress or during other difficult patches in your life (lost love, financial woes, etc.).
And yet, as a society, we don’t seem to absorb this simple fact and apply it to the issue of other drug addictions.
So let’s say you have an everyday heroin addict. Because it’s illegal, she’ll have to go to some lengths to keep supplied, which probably means selling. She sells to an informant and gets busted on a trafficking charge. Her daughter is taken away. Her car (her only asset) is seized and sold. She’s facing jail and can’t afford a lawyer. Her friends shun her. And now she’s told to quit using drugs. Her entire life has fallen apart and now is the time to quit an addiction? Even if she gets treatment, the odds are stacked against her.
No wonder the recidivism rate is so high.
Let’s compare this to the Swiss model.

Switzerland is now leading the way out of prohibition. In 1994, it started prescribing free heroin to long-term addicts who had failed to respond to law enforcement or any other treatment. In 1998, a Lausanne criminologist, Martin Kilias, found that the users’ involvement in burglary, mugging and robbery had fallen by 98%; in shoplifting, theft and handling by 88%; in selling soft drugs by 70%; in selling hard drugs by 91%. As a group, their contacts with police had plunged to less than a quarter of the previous level. The Dutch and the Germans have had similar results with the same strategy. All of them report that, apart from these striking benefits in crime prevention, the users are also demonstrably healthier ( because clean heroin properly used is a benign drug ) and that they are more stable with clear improvements in housing, employment and relationships. [The Guardian]

So with a regulated clean drug source, an addict can be taken out of the criminal justice system and the stresses involved. They can get their lives in a good stable situation, complete with legal employment, so that when they’re ready to quit, it’s much easier, and more likely to last.
So when I hear people touting the value of drug courts, or pushing (as Kleiman does) coerced treatment as the answer to the drug war, I am extremely skeptical. These provide the wrong situations for a proper approach to quitting drugs. Scientists even have evidence that specific chemical actions in the brain add to the strength of the addiction during periods of stress.
Sure, I have no doubt that some people have responded to the “tough love” approach, but I wonder if that’s only because a more sane approach didn’t exist.
Once again, our slavish adherence to the drug war prevents us from actually considering options that might be more effective. And that’s just stupid.
And so I’ll repeat…

Some days it feels like I’m watching a house on fire. And one idiot wants to put it out with a machine gun. The other one wants to use grenades. And I’m standing there with a bucket of water and they look at me like I’m crazy.

There have been a number of recent discussions nationally regarding prison reform. It’s important to remember that these are not merely statistics.
This was brought starkly to my mind when I received a note from Isidro Aviles‘ mother. Today would have been his birthday.