Drug WarRant

I’m leaving for desolate areas of Iowa and western Illinois to help my parents celebrate their birthdays. My mom turns 85 on July 4 and my dad turns 85 on July 7. Part of the time, I won’t have internet, cell phone, TV or any other kind of communication access. I’ll surface for air when I can and drop in.
Before I go, I just want to add a special note to all the commenters here at Drug WarRant (you know who you are). It really makes it exciting to blog on a daily basis knowing that you are there reading, responding (and sometimes correcting). And for those of you who just stop by and read the posts, take a moment to check out the comments. We have some of the most intelligent, educated, and rationally passionate people you can imagine.
Here are a few things to keep you busy (I cleaned off my desktop of recent items that I wanted to find time to blog about).
“bullet” White House Announces Intent to Nominate Scott Burns as Deputy Director of National Drug Control Policy — no big deal. Burns is a major liar, who has worked for the ONDCP for ages as a Component Deputy Director. Although the nomination process could be a good time for asking some difficult questions, if someone in the Senate is willing.
“bullet” Salvia: The Other Story — Drug Law Blog’s Alex has a good post about the recent alarmist stories about Salvia.

The story is simply that salvia, though it is a powerful hallucinogen that is legal almost everywhere, virtually never causes problems for our society. Nobody kills or robs anybody for salvia. Nobody smuggles salvia across our borders. Nobody steals to support a salvia habit. Gangs don’t form to deal in salvia. People don’t wind up in the gutter because they just couldn’t get enough salvia. And taxpayers aren’t wasting tens of millions of dollars to keep salvia users in prison.

“bullet” Press Release from the European Coalition for Just and Effective Drug Policies — via David Guard — an excellent press release demonstrating the dissembling of Mario Costa and the UNODC

It is probable that levels of use, abuse and dependence have been reached that will stay fairly constant for a long time, with or without repression. The term “stabilization” could have been used many years ago, but it wasn’t convenient at that time for UNODC and other authorities to do so. Now, because it is impossible for UNODC to pretend any progress in the war on drugs, the term stabilization is used to hide this failure.

“bullet” DPA Press Release: Justice Department Report Finds Largest Increase in Prison and Jail Inmate Populations Since 2000; Prison Growth Despite Public Sentiment for Alternatives to Incarceration. Plus JPI Press Release: New numbers show “alarming growth” in incarceration; Justice Department survey shows biggest increase since 2000.
See also: We’re (Still) #1! America’s Gulag Just Keeps Growing by Ethan Nadelmann

Voters should be outraged that their tax money continues to be wasted on failed drug war policies.

“bullet” The Purple Brain: America’s New Reefer Madness by Marsha Rosenbaum and Paul Armentano.

More than 70 years in the making, the long-awaited sequel to the notorious 1936 film, Reefer Madness has arrived. It’s called The Purple Brain, and just like its unintentionally campy predecessor, its purpose is to frighten Americans about marijuana.

“bullet” ‘Awesome’ Teacher On Pot Charge

An “awesome” counsellor and teacher at Lillooet Secondary is to appear in court next month, charged with trafficking marijuana. […]
The Lillooet News reported that police claimed they spotted DeLong smoking marijuana with two young women.æ When questioned, the young women allegedly told police they got the marijuana from DeLong.
DeLong was arrested and charged with trafficking a controlled substance.

I don’t know the whole story in that one, but I find it so bizarre that people can be “shocked” that such an awesome teacher would end up doing something like smoke pot. It’s like they discovered that he was a mass murderer or something.
I’d really like to see a story: “Man ticketed for driving 75 in a 65 mph zone. Neighbors are shocked, saying ‘He seemed like such a nice man.'”
After all, speeding is more dangerous than smoking pot.
“bullet” Law Requires N.M. to Grow Its Own Pot

New Mexico has a new medical marijuana law with a twist: It requires the state to grow its own.
The law, effective Sunday, not only protects medical marijuana users from prosecution _ as 11 other states do _ but requires New Mexico to oversee a production and distribution system for the drug.
“The long-term goal is that the patients will have a safe, secure supply that doesn’t mean drug dealers, that doesn’t mean growing their own,” said Reena Szczepanski, director of Drug Policy Alliance New Mexico.

It’s really going to be interesting when the DEA tries to shut down the New Mexico state-run marijuana dispensary. It’ll be a much trickier PR thing for them.
“bullet” Evidence Of ‘Reefer Madness’ Abounds by Tom Oleson.

As is well known, marijuana, the killer weed, causes “reefer madness” in those who have any contact with it.æ Bureaucrats and politicians appear to be particularly prone to this malady and if they had any sense they would stay away from the weed, but they don’t and so they don’t.æ The reason seems obvious — they are simply mad.æ It is pretty hard, in fact, to reasonably account for Canada’s marijuana laws and the way they are enforced without this explanation of reefer madness. […]
To go back to Dickens, the law in this case truly is “a ass — a idiot.”

“bullet” Military sees drop in black recruits. I wonder if anyone will connect the fact that a disproportionate number of black males are in prison or correctional supervision, largely due to the drug war.
“bullet” Up From Prohibition — just one of a number of media discussions involving Michael Lerner’s new book “Dry Manhattan.” It’s nice to see how a new book about alcohol prohibition brings so many to see the parallels with drug prohibition. It seems to me that we’re doing a much better job of getting that message out.
“bullet” Plan Colombia spotlights lunacy of our war on drugs by Froma Harrop.

So why do we do it? Here’s a hint: Almost half of the $630 million in military aid to Colombia last year was scooped up by U.S. defense contractors. There’s money in the madness. […]
In the meantime, let’s acknowledge reality and decriminalize drugs. That would close down international drug trafficking overnight. Really, what Andean peasants cultivate on the sides of their mountains should be no concern of ours.

“bullet” Cannabis Debate Angers Some Indonesians. You think marijuana legalization efforts have it tough here? Try Indonesia:

“If it is legalised, we will wage war with the National Narcotics Agency and we will burn this building,” Eka Jaya told FPI supporters, who had gathered chanting “Allahu Akbar” ( God is great ) outside the Jakarta office.
It also volunteered to help authorities catch drug offenders.
“If the agency is incapable of obliterating the drugs syndicates, allow FPI ( to help ), by giving us access to weapons and permission to investigate and catch ( them ),” Jaya said.

And Indonesia’s version of the ONDCP has got the “making up statistics” part down very well.

The National Narcotics Agency said more than 3.2 million people in Indonesia were drug users, and 70 per cent of those were also addicts.

70%?
“bullet” Life Sentences: Collateral Sanctions Associated with Marijuana Offenses – a report by the Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics.

In addition to the punishment imposed by the judge, æa misdemeanor conviction for possession of marijuana can trigger automatic bars on educational aid, a bar on serving as a foster parent, denial of federal housing assistance, revocation or suspension of occupational licenses, and suspension of one‰s driver‰s license. A felony conviction (for example, growing a marijuana plant) can result in all of these sanctions, and more.
If marijuana offenses are considered less of an affront to civil society than violent crimes such as murder, rape, or kidnapping, or even less of an affront than other drug offenses, our study shows that this consideration is rarely found in any of the collateral sanctions. A person convicted of growing marijuana (a felony in most states) is often subjected to the same, and sometimes greater, collateral sanctions than a person convicted of murder, rape, or robbery

Check the chart. Where does your state fall?
“bullet” Drug-free zones target blacks unfairly, critics sayDrug-free zones target blacks unfairly, critics say (via Drug Law Blog) — a strong article. Be sure to check out the chart: “10 years in the war on drugs”, clickable on the left side.
“bullet” Radley Balko’s testimony before Congress regarding the militarization of the police.

Scooter Libby is free. Richard Paey is in prison.
President Bush said that Libby’s 2 1/2 year sentence was “excessive.” Richard Paey’s sentence is 25 years.

Am I dreaming?
Joe Biden, sponsor of the Rave Act and inventor of the Drug Czar, is now positioning himself as a leader in crack/powder disparity reform.
Everybody realizes that the crack/powder disparity is racist in its effect and is absolutely unsupportable, but no politician wants to do anything that looks like they’re reducing penalties for drugs in any way. So political reform bills have involved moving crack and powder sentencing slightly closer to each other, but keeping the disparity.
Biden is actually proposing the correct, simple approach: make them the same.

‹Senator Hatch has taken a bold and important step in the right direction, and I applaud his efforts,Š said Senator Biden. ‹But, we‰ve got to go further and solve this problem for good. The current sentencing disparity between the two forms of cocaine is based on false notions and old logic. The bottom line is that there is no scientific justification for any disparity. Crack and powder are simply two forms of the same drug, and each form produces identical effects. I will soon be introducing legislation that eliminates the sentencing disparity completely, fixing this injustice once and for all. I look forward to working with Senator Hatch and others — Republicans and Democrats — and urge them to support righting this wrong.Š

It sounds good, and implied in the Biden press release is the notion that this fix will simply mean changing the crack guidelines to match the current powder guidelines. However, that’s not stated specifically, and the release does not rule out the notion of equalizing them, in part, by making it worse for powder, which would be wrong (of course, the truly right thing would involve the “L” word, but you won’t see that from this Congress).
Has Biden turned around a little? Or is this just another political trick? After all, this press release came out just prior to the Democratic Presidential Candidate Debate dealing with minority issues…

On July 12, the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, will be holding hearings on DEA oversight. Apparently, an important part of those hearings will focus on the DEA’s involvement/interference with doctors treating pain, and some outstanding witnesses are being called.
If this is an issue of importance to you; if you have a story about your difficulties in getting pain treated; this is the time to contact your representative.
And support the Pain Relief Network — they’re doing some really great work in this area.

On PBS tomorrow (Tuesday, July 3) is the premiere of Standing Silent Nation by Suree Towfighnia and Courtney Hermann

In April 2000, Alex White Plume and his Lakota family planted industrial hemp on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota after other crops had failed. But when federal agents raided the White Plumes’ fields, the Lakota Nation was swept into a Byzantine struggle over tribal sovereignty, economic rights and common sense.

This looks like it could be a very good piece. There are some extra clips at the website, including “Hemp for Victory” which is a history of hemp production in America, and an amazing interview with former CIA director James Woolsey, who not only says that industrial hemp should be legalized, but blatantly points out how stupid the government’s policy is (particularly regarding the nonsense about hiding pot in industrial hemp fields).

Transform continues its excellent series (extracts from an upcoming publication) with a brief analysis of various types audiences reformers will end up against: Evangelical prohibitionists, Knee-jerk prohibitionists, Unconvinced reformers, and Prohibitionist politicians.
There are some useful, and fun, descriptions there. There was one statement, however, that threw me. Under the description of unconvinced reformers was this sentence.

Their views on legal regulation may be clouded by misunderstandings about ‘legalisation‘, put forward by cannabis evangelists or extreme libertarians. When they are presented with a coherent set of policy alternatives this group will usually be happy to support them.

I think I understand what they’re driving at, but it’s unclear, and at first glance, makes it seem a bit like “legalisation” is the extreme view put forward. I think what they really mean is that reluctant reformers are often uncomfortable associating themselves with those who openly support recreational drug use. And this is because the Evangelical prohibitionists have for so long painted that basic position as being “beyond the pale.”
It is the Evangelical prohibitionists and Prohibitionists politicians who have repeatedly attributed bizarre and false notions as being the views of cannabis evangelists and extreme libertarians — such as that legalizers want to make heroin available pre-packaged and shrink-wrapped in a display at the checkout counter of the 7-11 for 8-year-olds to buy. And, of course, I’ve never met anyone who really believed that — it’s just what prohibitionists want people to believe about legalizers.
The real sin of Unconvinced reformers (other than believing what prohibitionists say) is their fear. Fear of being called extreme, whether they are or not. Fear of being looked at as “druggies” by their friends. And on a higher level, fear of losing grants, access, “respectability.”
[Note: I do agree with Transform’s point that “When they are presented with a coherent set of policy alternatives this group will usually be happy to support them.”]

Link
The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of this ruling:

A seventh-grader from Vermont was suspended for wearing a shirt that bore images of cocaine and a martini glassÖbut also had messages calling President Bush a lying drunk driver who abused cocaine and marijuana, and the “chicken-hawk-in-chief” who was engaged in a “world domination tour.” […]
Williamstown Middle School Principal Kathleen Morris-Kortz said the images violated the school dress code, which prohibits clothing that promotes the use of drugs or alcohol.
An appeals court said the school had no right to censor any part of the shirt.

This is good news in the context of the Bong Hits decision, as it verifies that schools are restricted from censoring political speech, and that images of marijuana leaves, for example, when used in political context, are political speech, not a promotion of illegal activity.
This was an issue for me a few years ago, when the residence halls at Illinois State University denied permission to distribute flyers for hempfest because of the presence of a hemp leaf on the flyer.

Scott Morgan and Allan Erickson have already addressed this, but I wanted to comment as well.
In this post by Clara Jeffery at MotherJones.com (which has some good points), there is a really uncalled for remark:

As in so many things these days, one wishes for something approximating independent analysis. I don’t trust the government’s research on drugs; its hyperbole and scare tactics on pot in particular seemed design to defend status quos (border and prison policies) that worsen, not solve, larger societal problems at hand. Nor do I trust NORML et al, even, and perhaps especially, when, having gotten nowhere on legalization per se, they reframe the issue as a balm for the sick and dying. Allowing medical marijuana is a no-brainer in my book, but I just think it’s a little unseemly when perfectly healthy pot-positive types hide behind AIDS and cancer patients.

I would guess that I fit in the “et al” and regardless of whether I do or not, it’s an extremely offensive statement (not to mention exceptionally illogical).
Scott Morgan gets it right in his response:

Clara Jeffery, why is it ok for you to call medical marijuana a “no-brainer,” and not us? We spoke of compassion, and we then built compassionate policies out of thin air and against massive opposition. No, we don’t hide behind AIDS and cancer patients. We march with them.

It’s like accusing an environmentalist of “hiding behind rainforests” if they advocate saving them. To an environmentalist, saving the rainforests is a piece of the total effort. To a legalizer, making marijuana available to the sick is a no-brainer integral part of legalization.
Are we supposed to say “Legalize marijuana, but not for sick people”? That would be absurd. As a legalizer, I want marijuana legally available to any adult who wishes to use it responsibly. As a human being, I put a higher priority on at least making it available to the terminally ill and those who need it to get through the day medically. How can I be a functioning human being and not think that way?
The ignorance reflected in Clara Jeffrey’s post is similar to the unsupported ad hominem attacks by academics like Mark Kleiman:

If you guessed from the above that neither side of the drug-policy debate actually gives a rat’s ass about sick people, you’re a remarkably good guesser.

To be fair, Kleiman seems to have moderated his views recently — at least he hasn’t made one of these nonsense attacks in some time, when he used to do them regularly.
I have to believe that some of it is that people like Klara and Mark have been influenced by the outlandish lies from drug warriors from Barry McCaffrey on to the current characters — that medical marijuana is a cruel hoax — and are somehow tying it in to legalizers’ wish to have marijuana legal.
And, you see, that ONLY works if you believe BOTH these propositions:

1. That medical marijuana is a cruel hoax — that it somehow gives false hope or prevents patients from following courses of treatment that would actually help them (things that are patently impossible for a drug that is primarily used as a symptom reliever).
2. That legalizers know marijuana is a false hope that hurts patients and promote it as medicine anyway, in order take steps toward getting it legalized for recreational purposes.

Obviously, both propositions are completely false.
On the other hand, for prohibitionists to be cruel, the following propositions must be true:

1. Marijuana actually helps sick people.
2. Prohibitionists fight against medical marijuana, knowing that it can help people, because they’re afraid that it will lead to legalization of recreational marijuana.

Those statements are not only likely true, they’re provably true.
What’s the problem with Mother Jones?

“bullet” First: Bong Hits 4 Jesus – the game. The trick here is to guess not which ones you should suspend a student for, but which ones you are allowed to suspend a student for/censor, based on the recent Supreme Court decision. Can you get a perfect 23/23 score? (How many times does it take you to do it?)

“bullet” Just wondering… If you were a High School student with some extra cash, and there was a billboard on private property facing your school (and visible from school windows), and you rented it and put up “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” on the billboard…
“bullet” The Sac Bee has a cartoon…
“bullet” And just as a reminder… you can make your own Bong Hits 4 Jesus statement.

“bullet”