Drug WarRant

Over at the WSJ Opinion Journal today, there is a book review by Russ Smith of Michael A. Lerner’s “Dry Manhattan” — a book that “concentrates on New York City in the Prohibition years.
What caught my attention was the opening paragraph of the review:

It’s nearly impossible to read about America’s failed attempt to outlaw the sale and consumption of alcohol in the 1920s without drawing parallels to modern “nanny state” regulations. No, we experience nothing as draconian as dryness-by-decree, but smoking restrictions, trans-fat bans and crackdowns on “noise pollution”–to mention only a few of today’s more grating attempts to dictate personal conduct–are useful reminders of a hovering paternalism in American life, a killjoy impulse often indulged in the name of public virtue.

Trans-fat and noise pollution? What about marijuana? “Nothing as draconian as dryness-by-decree”? Excuse me, Russ — have you not heard of Prohibition 2: the War on Drugs?
What makes this omission by Russ Smith even more astonishing is the fact that the rest of the article is a treasure trove of hit-you-over-the-head parallels between alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition (just without mentioning the drug prohibition part).

“When the Progressive and dry movements converged in the 1910s, the xenophobia and nativism of both movements inevitably came to the surface,” Mr. Lerner writes. “As the dry lobby gained momentum, it staked its success on its ability to depict foreigners, Catholics, Jews, and city dwellers as threats to everything genuinely American.” To buttress his case, Mr. Lerner cites William Johnson of the Anti-Saloon League, who decried Germans because they “eat like gluttons and drink like swine.” A pamphlet from the dry-allied Progressives, the author tells us, referred to New York City’s Italians as “Dagos, who drink excessively, live in a state of filth and use the knife on slightest provocation.”

Sound familiar? Substitute Mexicans and blacks and you have marijuana prohibition.

The city’s police officers often took bribes from owners of retro-fitted saloons and speakeasies; judges resented the backlog of court cases for liquor violations. Contrary to the hopes of reformers, arrests for public intoxication in New York increased during Prohibition, as did hospital admissions for alcoholism.

Hello, Russ. See it yet?

In the early years of the ban, affluent New Yorkers enjoyed the risk of flirting with crime and relished “slumming” in other parts of the city, such as Harlem, where they’d never been before. […]
Mr. Lerner is at his best when describing the inherent class discrimination of the dry movement. Although the well-off could skirt the law by bribe or influence, the masses of immigrants and working-class citizens could not. Before the ban was enacted, saloons were often the center of immigrant activities, places where foreign-born laborers congregated, catching up with friends, cashing checks, picking up English phrases, and assimilating into the city’s working and popular culture while imbibing beer, wine or whiskey.
“As the dry experiment took shape in the early 1920s,” Mr. Lerner notes, “the city’s Irish, Italian and Eastern European immigrants, its Catholics and Jews, and the masses of other ethnic Americans who populated New York found that the main objective of the dry lobby was to police the habits of the poor, the foreign-born and the working class.”

Wow. Talk about dÚjà vu.

As the decade progressed, Prohibition’s failure to accomplish much besides lending an iffy quality to the nation’s liquor supplies turned the law into something of a joke…

I give up.
This just goes to show, I believe, that we have to keep hammering the “Prohibition” label for the drug war.

Arianna Huffington’s powerful piece “The War on Drugs is Really a War on Minorities,” which was in the Los Angeles Times on Saturday, is now reprinted at Alternet today:

While all the major candidates are vying for the black and Latino vote, they are completely ignoring one of the most pressing issues affecting those constituencies: the failed “war on drugs” — a war that has morphed into a war on people of color.

This gives me a chance to promote the article again, while noting the deafening silence produced by its publication on Saturday.
This was a piece with profound political significance, published in a major national paper, yet within all the major online liberal and conservative political communities, there has been nary a peep about it.
Sure, it got mentioned in the drug policy reform and the law and sentencing online communities, plus a couple of livejournals and a single liberal blog (True Blue Liberal) that I hadn’t heard of before. Daily Kos? Not a mention in stories, diaries, or comments that I could find. The other major liberal blogs? Nothing.
What about the conservatives? Where was the “Hey, Arianna Huffington is trashing Clinton and Obama — go watch the fun!”? Nowhere.
Now for a blog to be silent on one article is no big deal. I certainly don’t write about, or link to, everything important that happens regarding drug policy reform. I can’t do that, and blogging is really about highlighting selective items, and creating a tapestry.
But the fact that the entire massive liberal and conservative political online presence essentially ignored Arianna’s column, certainly seems to say something about the political discomfort with the subject.

Event: Prohibition Kills: An Evaluation of the War on Drugs

The Illinois State University chapter of Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) presents a program evaluating the “War on Drugs” featuring three experts on the drug war, followed by a discussion period with questions from the audience.

Speakers: Greg Francisco (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition), Pete Guither (Drug WarRant.com) and George Pappas (Illinois Drug Education and Legislative Reform)
When: Thursday, March 29 at 7:00 pm
Where: Bone Student Center (Old Main Room), Illinois State University, 110 N. University St, Normal, Illinois

Free and open to the public. If you’re in the area, please check it out.

An OpEd in the Arizona Range News on Wednesday just may be the epitome of anti-legalization arguments: Legalization Of Drugs Is A Bad Idea.
I know I was certainly curious when I saw the headline, and I eagerly read on to find out why. Author Terry Maxwell gets right into it:

Supporters of legalization take the position that the “War on Drugs” has failed to control or reduce drug abuse. They relate that the cost of incarcerating drug offenders and building prisons is rising at an alarming rate. Currently, drug offender’s account for approximately one-third of the federal and state prison population.

OK. That doesn’t sound so bad for legalization. In fact, that’s a pretty good argument for our side. He must be warming up.

Legalization zealots argue that the repeal of drug prohibition laws would significantly reduce the government’s enforcement costs and create new tax revenues from the legal production and sale of drugs. Therefore, states would save at least $10 billion per year that could be used for treatment and job training programs.

Saving money is good. This is another strong argument for legalization. Terry must have something really big to hit us with…

They say crimes of violence would be reduced with legalization, and junkie-related robberies to obtain money to buy illegal drugs would be significantly reduced and the streets of Willcox and surrounding communities would be less prone to crime.

Thanks and all, Terry, for all the good mentions of legalization. Reducing violence and crime sounds excellent. But we’re here to learn your arguments against legalization. Go ahead, give it to us…

The possibility of increased physical addiction to readily available drugs has been a strong argument against legalization. The rebuttal to this position is that there is no valid research to support that hypothesis.

Ah, there we go. No, wait. Now I’m really confused. He just rebutted his only argument so far.

Bob Miller, 59, a U.S. Marine, Viet Nam veteran, and a 14-year resident of Willcox, pointed out illegal drugs have never played a role in his life and never will. “However, I believe that drugs should be legalized for a number of rational reasons,” Miller said, “Prisons are full of addicts at a staggering cost in human suffering and out-of-control prison construction costs.”
“Common sense dictates that the legalization of drugs would reduce the price of drugs and significantly reduce crime in our community.” Miller went on to say, “Our money has been wasted on the so called ‘War on Drugs.’ It should have been used to educate our children, improve health care and fight poverty.”

Right. Now we’re back to arguments for legalization. So what is that so far, something like 10 arguments for legalization and one rebutted argument against? This is supposed to be Terry’s OpEd.
So now, do we finally get some arguments against legalization?
No, Terry jumps straight to the conclusion.

After carefully reviewing the literature for and against the legalization of drugs and assessing the risks involved in making hard drugs easily available without criminal penalties, I believe the proponents of legalization are fundamentally wrong about the extent and severity of the negative consequences of legalization.
The potential human costs of totally legalizing drugs would be so large as to create a public policy disaster. Historically, when drugs have been inexpensive and easy to obtain, addiction dramatically increased.
Can we take the risk of experimenting with legalization at the expense of our children and grandchildren? I don’t think so! The human carnage from drug abuse is already staggering and almost beyond comprehension. To ask the residents of Willcox to possibly bear the pain of losing a loved one to drug abuse, rising health insurance costs, and conceivably subjecting their family to the consequences of increased child and spousal abuse, among numerous other abuses from legalizing drugs is inconceivable and unethical, in my opinion.

Amazing! Now you understand why I say this may be the epitome of anti-legalization arguments? Intellectually, Terry Maxwell understands pretty much all the truths about drug policy. Prohibition doesn’t work, it’s expensive, it makes things worse, fuels crime and violence, etc., etc. And yet, based on nothing but belief, legalization is “inconceivable” and therefore all those hard facts and truths are to be ignored.

Another video from TrueHigh (the maker of the ONDCP Propaganda response videos)

Another relevant video: Medical marijuana ad refused by radio station. Former Senator Gordon Humphrey owns WKXL radio in Concord, New Hampshire. The station refused to accept a radio ad promoting medical marijuana legislation.

“bullet” Last week’s ridiculous “apology” in the Independent (UK) has generated some attention this Sunday, with a series of articles and letters to the editor. Quite a mixed bag.
On one side you have:

I have been a productive, happy citizen my entire adult life and have regularly consumed cannabis since I was 13 ( I am now 40 ). How is it that I have not suffered from the pernicious effects you cite? Simply, I have used cannabis responsibly.

… and on the other you have:

I can’t thank you enough for Sunday’s articles on skunk. My 18-year-old son is currently awaiting trial for his last violent outburst fuelled by his six-year addiction to the drug. I have watched helplessly as he has spiralled into self-destruction. He has transformed from a sharp-witted loving child into a monster. It is the hardest thing in the world to ask the police to take your own child away and thrust him into the criminal justice system when you know what he really needs is drugs counselling. I am delighted that, at last, hordes of terrified parents have been given a voice.

And then you have an OpEd that suggests:

The “old” type of cannabis that used to be available in the 1960s and 1970s is worlds apart from much of the stuff that is easily acquired nowadays. People will argue about the precise difference in strength ( the amount of tetrahydrocannabinol – THC ), but, indisputably, skunk is often 15 times stronger than that which used to be available. If I had my way I would legalise the old stuff and make skunk a class A drug. […]
If you see lawless groups of young kids in the street or teenagers who threaten passers-by with knives, there is a strong chance that they have used skunk in the previous 24 hours. I am not saying that skunk has caused the lawlessness, but it definitely won’t have helped. If you see a sheet-white young person who looks lost and mentally ill, then the same is probably true.

Now this is the first time that I’ve heard someone suggest making marijuana legal, while at the same time making marijuana a Class A illegal drug! Wouldn’t it make more sense to say that you’re in favor of legalizing and regulating marijuana? After all, alcohol has legal limits on how it can be sold in terms of strength.
But there’s a bigger problem here and that’s this rampant reefer madness. What’s going on that’s causing these people to foam at the mouth? (and I’m talking about the writers, not the pot smokers) I’m beginning to think that it all comes down to the use of the name “skunk.” If they’d call it something proper, like “dope” or “weed,” then maybe journalists and quacks wouldn’t be hallucinating about the madness of youth.
“bullet” And if you want some more madness, you can always turn to Bill O’Reilly, whose OpEd ‘Medical’ MJ for Teens is in papers all over the county today. He gets to push all the hot buttons: George Soros… and our youth.

The biggest bankroller of the referendum was George Soros, the billionaire who champions drug legalization. He pumped about $350,000 into pro-medpot ads, according to published reports.
Since the act was passed into law, thousands of pot “clinics” have opened across the state. In San Francisco, things got so out of control that Mayor Gavin Newsom, a very liberal guy, had to close many of the “clinics” because drug addicts were clustering around them, causing fear among city residents.
In San Diego, there’s another problem: Some high school kids have found a loophole in the Compassion Act. Incredibly, there is no age requirement to secure medical marijuana in California – and no physical exam needed, either. So some kids tell a doctor they have a headache, pay him $150 for a card, and then buy all the pot they want. Unbelievable, but true.

Interestingly, he makes a point that I’m not sure he fully realized.

If marijuana can help those suffering with debilitating diseases, then doctors should have the power to prescribe it and licensed pharmacies should carry it.

Marijuana does help those suffering with debilitating diseases. So, Bill, are you going to push for federal legalization of medical marijuana? We’d be happy to have you promote it on your show. Get your listeners to lobby Congress to remove it from Schedule 1. When you’re ready, we’ll help you out.

Just a note that I’m working on a slight layout change and yes, it will include Google ads. Please be aware that I am not in any way involved in selecting the ads that show up here.
I’ll be doing some tweaking over the next couple of days. Please let me know if the page layout doesn’t work in your browser or operating system.

I haven’t had to bring up this liar for awhile. Joseph Califano, and Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA), you may recall, is known primarily for falsifying numbers about teenage drinking. They’re ba-ack.
In the Daily Tar Heel, we see Report: Half In College Abuse Drugs Or Alcohol:

Experts Find the trend alarming
Drug and alcohol use is a chronic problem for college students across the country, a recent report found, and one that UNC students and officials say needs to be addressed.
Nearly half of all full-time college students binge drink and/or abuse prescription and illegal drugs, according to a study released March 15 by The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.

The report is Wasting the Best and the Brightest: Substance Abuse at America‰s Colleges and Universities (pdf). The actual report (even if you could believe the numbers, which I don’t, given that CASA is promoting this), is actually more alarmist than alarming.
And check out Califano’s statement:

Accepting as
inevitable this college culture of alcohol and
other drug abuse threatens not only the present
well being of millions of college students, but
also the future capacity of our nation to maintain
its leadership in the fiercely competitive global
economy.

What nonsense!
Not only is there very little in the report to support some major shift, what’s really intellectually dishonest is that the report, while claiming that the problem is binge drinking and drug abuse spends pages upon pages pushing for abstinence and enforcement efforts (which, of course, have no impact on bingeing or abusing). Not once do they mention the notion of managing use.
I went to college in the 1970’s and I work at a University now. College students experiment with drugs and try out their limits with alcohol. In any time and any place.
When I was in college, my roommate and I decided to find out what it was like to get drunk, so we loaded up with Bacardi 151, Sloe Gin, and Boone’s Farm Apple and got puking drunk (yes, we were idiots, but mostly in terms of our lack of knowledge of good drink choices). However, after that one bad night, we rarely did any binge drinking, for one simple reason. We did most of our drinking in bars (the drinking age was lower) and they stopped serving you when you got drunk (and we learned to make better choices — today I stick with good single-malt Scotch).
These days, the students in college do all their drinking at unsupervised parties because the drinking age is 21. Drug use occurs, but is driven further underground, where people who might have problems are less likely to seek out help.
There are potential lessons to be learned from analyzing college alcohol and drug use patterns, but not with Califano and CASA distorting the numbers and the message.

thehim, over at Blog Reload eviscerates a poor San Diego State University student drug warrior.
Come on, Lee, isn’t it unfair to use facts and logic and stuff?

In today’s Los Angeles Times is a blistering OpEd by Arianna Huffington

Democratic presidential candidates crave the Latino and black vote, but ignore the Drug War’s unfair toll on people of color. […]
The silence coming from Clinton and Obama is particularly deafening.
Obama has written eloquently about his own struggle with drugs but has not addressed the tragic effect the war on drugs is having on African American communities.
As for Clinton, she flew into Selma, Ala., to reinforce her image as the wife of the black community’s most beloved politician and has made much of her plan to attract female voters, but she has ignored the suffering of poor, black women right in her own backyard. […]
Avoidance of this issue comes at a very stiff price (and not just the more than $50 billion a year we’re spending on the failed drug war). The toll is paid in shattered families, devastated inner cities and wasted lives (with no apologies for using that term). […]
Maybe the president will suddenly wake up and decide to take on the issue five days before he leaves office. That’s what Bill Clinton did, writing a 2001 New York Times Op-Ed article in which he trumpeted the need to “immediately reduce the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences” Ö conveniently ignoring the fact that he had the power to solve it for eight years and did nothing. […]
A 2000 study found that 1.4 million African American men Ö 13% of the total black male population Ö were unable to vote in the 2000 election because of state laws barring felons access to the polls. In Florida, one in three black men is permanently disqualified from voting. Think that might have made a difference in the 2000 race? Our shortsighted drug laws have become the 21st century manifestation of Jim Crow.
Shouldn’t this be an issue Democratic presidential candidates deem worthy of their attention?

Really powerful stuff. Read the whole thing. Print it out and mail it to the Presidential candidates.