Drug WarRant

If you haven’t been following recent developments in the UK, there’s been quite an upheaval and controversy over drug policy (the best coverage is at Transform Drug Policy Foundation blog).
Actual new and creative ideas are being discussed (although that is also causing backlash from the prohibitionists, who are attacking with renewed vigor).
And studies that actually trash entrenched thinking are not only being published, but reported in the media. In reporting the Lancet study published yesterday, the Associated Press and the Globe and Mail even shouted in the headline: Booze, smokes worse than some illegal drugs: study.

New ‹landmarkŠ research finds that alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than some illegal drugs like marijuana or Ecstasy and should be classified as such in legal systems, according to a new British study. […]
Heroin and cocaine were ranked most dangerous, followed by barbiturates and street methadone. Alcohol was the fifth most harmful drug and tobacco the ninth most harmful. Cannabis came in 11th, and near the bottom of the list was Ecstasy.
According to existing British and U.S. drug policy, alcohol and tobacco are legal, while cannabis and Ecstasy are both illegal. Previous reports, including a study from a parliamentary committee last year, have questioned the scientific rationale for Britain’s drug classification system.

To me, the interesting thing here is the discussion — the fact that conventional wisdom about the relative dangers of drugs is being questioned — not the specific rankings. The methodology, though interesting, is subjective and can’t really control completely for the effects of a drug’s legal status.

Prof. Nutt and his colleagues used three factors to determine the harm associated with any drug: the physical harm to the user, the drug’s potential for addiction, and the impact on society of drug use. The researchers asked two groups of experts Ö psychiatrists specializing in addiction and legal or police officials with scientific or medical expertise Ö to assign scores to 20 different drugs, including heroin, cocaine, Ecstasy, amphetamines and LSD.

Still, this is a great opportunity for dialogue, and even the U.S. press is carrying the story.
Update: Of course, the notion that illegal drugs can be less dangerous than legal drugs is not anything even remotely new, and is, in fact, a big yawn to drug policy reformers. However, it’s something that is still a bit of a surprise to many of those uneducated about drugs and drug policy.

“bullet” At Alternet It’s Been an ‘All Out War’ on Pot Smokers for 35 Years
“bullet” At Austin Criminal Defense Lawyer: A Government Agency Tells the Truth About Marijuana
“bullet” At the Agitator: Puppycide
“bullet”

“bullet” I was quoted reasonably well (they got a few things wrong) in this article in the Illinois State University newspaper.
“bullet” Big event locally on March 29 (a week from today). “Prohibition Kills: An Evaluation of the War on Drugs” featuring Greg Francisco (LEAP), Pete Guither (Drug WarRant), and George Pappas (IDEAL reform) at 7 pm on the Illinois State University campus (Bone Student Center, Old Main Room). If you’re in the area, please come.
“bullet” I’ve been busy recently with work and a bunch of other stuff, including putting together a girl band. (Yes, you heard that right.) It’s for a production of Caryl Churchill’s “Vinegar Tom” and the director (Deb Alley) wanted a girl band on stage for the 7 songs in the play, so I put the 3-piece band together (guitar, bass, drums), arranged the music and directed it. We’ve named the band “Succubi” and I think they’re great (but I’m biased, of course). The music is a combination of beautiful, yet horrifyingly creepy, ballads and complex rock that’s a little bit twisted (and definitely for mature audiences). “Vinegar Tom” opens Wednesday (March 28) in Westhoff Theatre (at Illinois State University) and runs through next Sunday.

This isn’t new, or startling, but it was interesting to see it in graph form. Via the Center for Substance Abuse Research (CESAR)…

Marijuana Distribution Relies Primarily on Friends and Family

I think the point here is that efforts to attack marijuana through criminal enforcement are doomed to failure and also inevitably cause tensions between citizens and law enforcement.

This disturbing post from Glenn Greenwald details some revelations that have come from the documents related to the firing of U.S. attorneys.
It was revealed that the DOJ (and other agencies within the government, including the DEA) have resisted the idea of videotaping interrogations.

The DOJ solicited the views of all federal law enforcement agencies — the FBI, ATF, DEA, U.S. Marshall’s Service — and each of them vigorously opposed mandatory recording. In doing so, one of the principal arguments was that they wanted to conceal from jurors the conduct of law enforcement agents in interrogating defendants and obtaining confessions, because that conduct would appear coercive and improper to jurors.

As Glenn notes:

The difference between recording v. no recording is not whether the conduct of federal agents will be an issue in a trial. The difference is whether there will be an accurate or inaccurate record of what these law enforcement agents are doing to extract statements and obtain confessions. Yet here, every federal law enforcement agency is expressly arguing against recordings because they want to conceal from the jury what they did (or because they want to conceal what the defendant actually said).

Welcome to America.

Just watched Willie on the Colbert Show. A fairly brief appearance and he really didn’t get a chance to talk much, but he did get to sing a few notes. During the show, there must have been a dozen marijuana references, including one from Ambassador Richard Holbrooke (who also sang with Willie and Stephen), with Willie dutifully adding “Wheat? I thought they said ‘weed.'”
Everybody loves Willie. And everybody knows he smokes pot. And nobody thinks that it’s wrong.
Five minutes with Willie Nelson can wipe away the effects of months of reefer madness lies from prohibitionists, and you start to believe that everything really could be OK.
I think America would be a much better place if our leaders all spent a couple of hours in Willie’s trailer.

“bullet” An outstanding guest post from Rev. Alan Bean of Tulia Friends of Justice at Grits for Breakfast: Talking Snitches in Atlanta. Grits also has a disturbing story about the procedural and scientific sloppiness in urine testing that ends up determining the fate of parolees.
“bullet” About that super-skunk marijuana that the British journalists are smoking that apparently is more than 100% THC and immediately causes drooling idiocy (which might explain their articles if it were true)… Transform covers it in How the Independent on Sunday got it horribly wrong on Cannabis, and Scott Morgan has The Truth About Marijuana Use in the UK and Philip Smith wonders if madness awaits him around the corner.
“bullet” The Sibel Edmonds story isn’t going away. A couple of years ago, I mentioned this connection between Turkish mafia, Dennis Hastert, drug smuggling, neocons, and the State Department. This story has significant potential implications on what we are doing in the drug war in Afghanistan. To get caught up, read What the heck is Sibel Edmonds’ Case about? And why should I care? over at Daily Kos.
“bullet” Radley has the scoop on the new fatally-flawed, but well-intentioned Georgia No-Knock Bill.

Via Transform comes this article in the Australian Age:

… the recently released report on amphetamines and other synthetic drugs by the federal Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission is a brave document.
Most notably, in contrast to the report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee, the committee unanimously supported harm minimisation and recommended that “harm-reduction strategies and programs receive more attention and resources”.
In its conclusions, the committee said “prohibition, while theoretically a logical and properly intentioned strategy, is not effective”. It also argued that “the current national approach to illicit drugs – supply reduction, demand reduction and harm reduction – will achieve greater outcomes if a better balance between these approaches can be reached”. In common parlance, this means there should be less emphasis on law enforcement and more on education and drug treatment.
Unfortunately, it is a rare event when any government body decides to make drug policy recommendations that are based on evidence. The report was not received warmly by the Government.

Familiar story. Think U.S. Shaffer report in 1972. Think Canadian Senate Report 2002. Shunned in their own countries.
Transform sees hope, and offers a tease…

…coming soon is a major new document produced by Transform with the sole aim to aid rational debate on drug policy. ëTools for Debate‰ will be a groundbreaking point-of-reference for anyone wishing to challenge non-rational policy positions, no matter how persuasive the rhetoric.

From CNN

If the justices conclude Joseph Frederick’s homemade sign was a pro-drug message, they are likely to side with principal Deborah Morse. She suspended Frederick in 2002 when he unfurled the banner across the street from the school in Juneau, Alaska.
“I thought we wanted our schools to teach something, including something besides just basic elements, including the character formation and not to use drugs,” Chief Justice Roberts said Monday. […]
“It sounds like just a kid’s provocative statement to me,” Justice David Souter said. […]
The outcome also could stray from the conservative-liberal split that often characterizes controversial cases.
Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote several opinions in favor of student speech rights while a federal appeals court judge, seemed more concerned by the administration’s broad argument in favor of schools than did his fellow conservatives.
“I find that a very, a very disturbing argument,” Alito told Justice Department lawyer Edwin Kneedler, “because schools have … defined their educational mission so broadly that they can suppress all sorts of political speech and speech expressing fundamental values of the students, under the banner of getting rid of speech that’s inconsistent with educational missions.”
Justice Stephen Breyer, in the court’s liberal wing, said he was troubled a ruling in favor of Frederick, even if he was making a joke, would make it harder to principals to run their schools.
“We’ll suddenly see people testing limits all over the place in the high schools,” Breyer said.
On the other hand, he said, a decision favorable to the schools “may really limit people’s rights on free speech. That’s what I’m struggling with.” […]
What if, Souter asked, a student held a small sign in a Shakespeare class with the same message Frederick used. “If the kids look around and they say, well, so and so has got his bong sign again,” Souter said, as laughter filled the courtroom. “They then return to Macbeth. Does the teacher have to, does the school have to tolerate that sign in the Shakespeare class?”
Justice Antonin Scalia, ridiculing the notion that schools should have to tolerate speech that seems to support illegal activities, asked about a button that says, “Smoke Pot, It’s Fun.”
Or, he wondered, should the court conclude that only speech in support of violent crime can be censored. “‘Extortion Is Profitable,’ that’s okay?” Scalia asked.
A clear majority seemed to side with Morse on one point, that she shouldn’t have to compensate Frederick. A federal appeals court said Morse would have to pay Frederick because she should have known her actions violated the Constitution.

More from Reuters

“It’s political speech, it seems to me. I don’t see what it disrupts,” a sceptical Justice David Souter said.
“And no one was smoking pot in that crowd,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, referring to the group of students standing near the banner as the Winter Olympic torch relay passed by in January 2002. […]
Justice Anthony Kennedy asked Kneedler if the principal could have required the banner be taken down if it had said “vote Republican, vote Democrat”.
Kneedler replied the principal has that authority.

It’ll be June or July before we have a decision.
Update:
Much more:

• SCOTUSblog, as always, has great analysis: here, here, and here
  

  The Supreme Court on Monday toyed with the notion that public school officials should have added discretion to censor student speech that they may interpret as advocating use of illegal drugs. But this was only a flirtation, not a warm embrace. During the argument in Morse v. Frederick (06-278), a clear majority of the Justices showed significant skepticism about creating a wide exception to the curb on suppression of student speech that the Court spelled out in 1969 in Tinker v. Des Moines School District
  As blog colleague Marty Lederman has pointed out in the post below, a sweeping exception to Tinker had the visible support Monday of only Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justice Antonin Scalia, who seemed to be competing to lay out the most generous view of officials’ discretion to enforce school-preferred messages.

• Hearing transcript available here (pdf)
• Coverage from PBS