Drug WarRant

It’s always a treat to read Lester Grinspoon, and he’s got an OpEd in the Boston Globe today.

A NEW STUDY in the journal Neurology is being hailed as unassailable proof that marijuana is a valuable medicine.
It is a sad commentary on the state of modern medicine — and US drug policy — that we still need “proof” of something that medicine has known for 5,000 years. […]
And it is extraordinarily safe — safer than most medicines prescribed every day. If marijuana were a new discovery rather than a well-known substance carrying cultural and political baggage, it would be hailed as a wonder drug.

He concludes by attempting to give Congress an “out.”

Hopefully the UCSF study will add to the pressure on the US government to rethink its irrational ban on the medicinal use of marijuana — and its destructive attacks on patients and caregivers in states that have chosen to allow such use. Rather than admit they have been mistaken all these years, federal officials can cite “important new data” and start revamping outdated and destructive policies.
The new Congress could go far in establishing its bona fides as both reasonable and compassionate by immediately moving on this issue. Such legislation would bring much-needed relief to millions of Americans suffering from cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, and other debilitating illnesses.

My page on the Morse v. Frederick “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” Supreme Court case has been expanding as more briefs come in. A while back, I told you about some of the Amicus briefs supporting the principal in this case. Now we have a number of briefs supporting the student.
I think the best one may be the one from Student Press Law Center (joined by Feminists for Free Expression, The First Amendment Project, The Freedom to Read Foundation and the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression). A strong brief throughout, and does a good job of identifying the petitioners’ attempts to create a new category of speech to be prohibited simply because it doesn’t agree with what the schools want to say.

There is likewise no constitutional exception, as Petitioners argue, for “subject-changing” speech that diverts the audience’s attention away from the school’s preferred message. […]
Robust independent student speech is fundamental in a democratic society. Not only is it constitutionally safeguarded, but it also provides students with a powerful and vital civics lesson.5 This Court has stated repeatedly that the fact that schools are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes. […] ( It is most important that our young become convinced that our Constitution is a living reality, not parchment preserved under glass. ).

Other amicus briefs on behalf of the student Frederick include National Coalition Against Censorship (joined by American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression), the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), and Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP). All breifs are available at the page as pdf files.
The ACLJ is the right-wing religious legal group. They’re the odd bedfellow in this particular case — arguing preemptively under the concern that expanding schools’ power to control students’ speech might someday be used against religious speech.
The brief from Students for Sensible Drug Policy is a really fascinating piece of work. In my mind, it is actually less effective in a strict legal sense than some of the other amicus briefs in making the specific case on behalf of the student, and yet it has the potential to serve a very important purpose. It appears to me that the SSDP brief is actually using the excuse of presenting an amicus brief to educate the Justices on important issues.
Essentially they creatively find a way to tell the Justices about some of the failures of the drug war by tying them to the compelling interest of students to discuss issues related to the drug war without interference. This tactic allows SSDP to bring up the fact that D.A.R.E. and the ONDCP Media Campaign are failures. It even allows them to mention the Goose Creek debacle..

Some schools go beyond these common measures and
employ more severe tactics, which they claim are geared
towards drug prevention. In Goose Creek, South Carolina,
for example, armed police officers stormed a public high
school shortly before the start of the school day and, at
gunpoint, ordered the students to the floor in order to
conduct a drug search. The principal requested the raid
based on suspicions cast by a few students and teachers,
and some surveillance videos showing nothing more than
‹students congregating under cameras, periodically
walking into a bathroom with different students and coming out moments later.Š Despite a thorough search
involving drug-sniffing dogs, no drugs were found.
Similarly, zero-tolerance policies have led to severe
punishment for trivial and even mythical offenses. Schools
have suspended students or turned them over to police for
possessing ordinary items that school officials said looked
like or ‹imitatedŠ drugs, such as a bag of dirt that officials
said looked like marijuana or a mixture of sugar and
Kool-Aid that officials said ‹imitat[ed] drug activity.Š
Students are also deeply affected by drug policies
outside of school. Mandatory minimum drug sentencing
laws, for example, have a significant impact on the
children of offenders who are forced to grow up without one
or both parents. Indeed, 67% of incarcerated parents — and
74% of incarcerated mothers — at the federal level are in
prison due to a drug offense. Young people similarly are
affected by a provision in the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which
subjects persons convicted of a state or federal felony drug
offense to a lifetime ban on receiving cash assistance and
food stamps. Some students may become homeless when family members run afoul of this one-strike policy that
permits public housing agencies to evict entire families if
one member of the family engages in drug activity.

And the brief goes on to list one travesty after another that involves students, supposedly to support the argument that students are so directly involved in all aspects of the drug war, that their ability to freely discuss it is even more critical.
But ultimately, the purpose of the SSDP brief appears to be to make sure the Justices know that if they were considering limiting speech in this case, it would not be for a noble, worthwhile, or useful purpose.

Check out this exchange at the National Review’s conservative group blog “The Corner”
Andrew Stuttaford

Who is losing Afghanistan?
George W. Bush, that’s who. His watch. His administration. His incompetence. His arrogance. His failure to learn from failure.
I wish I could say that I was surprised by this latest report from Aghanistan, but I’m not:

“British officials are worried about the consequences of US proposals to eradicate Afghanistan’s opium poppy harvest, which include spraying the crops from the air, a policy it adopted in Colombia. The fear is that tough anti-narcotic measures now would alienate poor farmers who have no alternative livelihood and drive more Afghans into the hands of the Taliban. Such a policy would further endanger British troops, military commanders say. ”
As I’ve said time and time before, the decision by the Bush administration to prioritize the drug war ahead of the war against the Taliban is of course, madness. It’s time for the Brits to take a stand, and announce that either Bush’s drug warriors leave Afghanistan or Britain’s troops do. Ninety days would seem to be adequate warning.

Andrew adds more here
Then another Cornerite jumps in:
Michael Ledeen

I don’t suppose there’s any room for doubt in Andrew’s categorical denunciation of the anti-narcotics campaign in Afghanistan. If there were, I would point out that the terrorists, most certainly including the Taliban, are major narcotics traffickers, derive a great part of their income from the drug traffic, and are in cahoots with various mafias in the project.
Has anybody asked if the local growers are going to be reimbursed? Or do we take the Guardian and the Times as canonical? It’s bad, and that’s that.
Life is rarely so simple as that.

Ledeen has never been the sharpest tack in the box, and Stuttaford nails him.
Andrew Stuttaford

Michael, it’s not just the Times and The Guardian. As you very well know, newspaper after newspaper after newspaper (across the ideological spectrum) has reported on this idiocy (I’ve cited plenty on this Corner in previous posts). If you prefer, check with the Senlis folks (also previously cited on the Corner). They are on the ground. If you don’t like Senlis, try the British Army. I’ve previously quoted a number of its representatives on the Corner too, and they, Michael, are also on the ground, and they are doing their best while the Bush administration does its incompetent, contemptible worse.
As for your point about the Taliban being drug traffickers, well, I hate to tell you, but it actually makes mine. The reason that the Taliban is able to make so much money out of this trade is the Western interdiction of Afghan opium. Black markets are always very profitable. In that sense, the drug warriors are the jihadis’ best friend. Thanks for nothing, guys.
And I’m sorry, Michael, this *is* simple. Basic economics usually is.
The drug warriors need to be thrown out of Afghanistan, and fast, please.

Boy, it sure is nice to see a conservative who hasn’t drunk the cool-aid, and isn’t afraid to use things like economics, and… a brain.

Why not both?
This bit of insanity has been making the rounds.

Mayor Thomas Lauzon on Saturday said he hoped the Legislature would consider imposing the death penalty on convicted crack and heroin dealers, and to legalize marijuana.

Crazy? Or crazy like a fox? After all, there’s a legalization advocate who could never be accused of being soft on drugs.
Oh, wait. We haven’t heard from the Governor yet…

Jason Gibbs, spokesman for Gov. James Douglas, said he had not discussed the issue of imposing the death penalty on crack and heroin dealers with the governor. But, he added, Douglas would oppose legalization of marijuana. “He’s not unalterably opposed to the death penalty, but he doesn’t have any plans to introduce it. There are some circumstances he would support a death penalty, but I’m not sure this is among them,” Gibbs said. “Marijuana is a gateway drug for some folks, so he would not support legalization.” Gibbs was referring to the view of some that marijuana is a “gateway drug” because it is the first step toward more serious drug usage and addictions.

Now that’s some scary crazy. He’s sure that marijuana legalization would be out of the question, but will have to check as to whether the death penalty for non-violent drug offenders should be in play.
Where do they find these people?

Thanks to Jay for alerting me to the fact that Tommy Chong has a blog!
And in this blog, he has announced his candidacy for the position of Drug Czar

Tonight is a special night because I am announcing (to
my friends) that I am running for the office of Drug
Czar of America. Now i realize that the office of the
Drug Czar is an appointed one by the winning party in
the White House but because my chances of being
appointed are very slim and almost non-existant I am
actually going to campaign like every other politician
and ask for your votes.

Sounds like a great plan. And I can guarantee that Tommy Chong would do a better job of serving the American people and the United States Constitution than John Walters. In fact, I could guarantee that he’d do a better job than any previous drug czar. Of course, for that matter, an igneous rock would do a better job of that than any drug czar we’ve had.
So when they distribute the ballots (or whatever they use), vote Chong for Czar.

There was a nice little moment during the Academy Awards last night. Host Ellen Degeneres was doing a little comedy bit involving vacuuming the carpet in front of the audience (and making the celebrities lift their feet and dresses) when she “happened upon” an object on the floor. (I’m paraphrasing from memory here)

What’s this? Rolling papers?
Wonder who these belong to?
Ahh — must be the band.

And she tossed them down into the orchestra pit.
The bit got a nice comfortable laugh from the audience. It was a simple throw-away moment that said “It’s funny, but it’s no big deal — and of course, the band would be smoking pot. Who wouldn’t find that… normal?”
So why am I blogging this? Because it’s one little piece of tangible evidence that the constant propaganda attempts by the ONDCP to demonize marijuana and marijuana users are simply not working. People know. It’s no big deal. (And Ellen’s bit was on one of the most widely watched television shows in the world.)
Now the drug czar would probably point to this as proof that Hollywood glamorizes drug use, but that’s not it. It’s simply that Hollywood, along with much of America, is not buying the all the propaganda.
And remember Tucker Carlson’s recent take-down of Souder?

Carlson: Yeah. OK. I’m not endorsing drugs, but I know a lot of casual marijuana users, so, that’s wrong.

There are too many of us telling the truth out there. Propaganda will sway some, and that’s unfortunate, but most of America does not believe that a pack of rolling papers endangers civilization.

You’re reading a post written on my new MacBook Pro laptop. Thanks so much to everyone who contributed to the laptop fund. Your support covered a significant portion of the cost, and really helped me out.
This thing is a real beauty. Since I can’t invite you all over to see it, I thought I’d at least share a photo with you.

There seems to be a (hopefully temporary) problem with comments. Some are missing. Some generate error messages, and most have the poster’s name, but no text. I’ve contacted the tech staff for Radio Userland and hope they’ll have a fix soon.
In the meantime, if you’ve got comments to make, feel free to stop by the messageboard, which is working fine.
Update: I’ve been informed that the problem has been fixed. It appears that the missing comments have been restored, but since they had to go to a backup, we lost the few comments that were added tonight during the problem. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Feel free to comment away again.

Tanya has already done a good job on this one, but it so annoyed me that I just can’t resist.
Check out this ridiculous story — and be sure to watch the video. Basically, you’ve got an truth-challenged researcher who has co-opted the staff of a TV station who appear to have the combined IQ of a turnip. This addiction specialist, who must have studied ethics under Andrea Barthwell, is looking for subjects for a bizarre research plan, and the TV station is more than happy to cooperate because it allows them to show stock video of grandma smoking pot. The journalistic errors in this piece are too numerous to count, including referring to some student they interviewed on the street as an expert, and once misquoting “cannabis dependence” as “cannabis independence.”

There are many Americans who smoke marijuana, a shredded mixture of green-brown flowers, stems and leaves of the hemp plant. […]
Many people don’t know that it’s also addictive.

So yes, they turned to the “scientist” who was using them — Barbara J. Mason, professor at Scripps Research Institute and co-director of Pearson Center for Alcoholism and Addiction Research

Addiction expert Dr. Barbara Mason of Scripps Research Institute said, “People have become dependent on cannabis.”

Well, that clears that up. Why haven’t we heard about it?

“One of the reasons we don’t hear much about it is because there are no treatments specifically for cannabis dependence.”

Ah, yes, if only there was a treatment for cannabis dependence. Then we’d finally be able to see that it exists.
I turned to my friend George, who has often helped me in the past, and he said:

There’s really no mystery about it. The existence of cannabis dependence is well established, as well as chocolate dependence, coffee dependence, etc., etc. The reason you don’t hear much about it is that it just isn’t that big a problem. The Institute of Medicine found that the percentage of those who showed any dependence for marijuana was dramatically lower than dependency for tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs, and that for those who are dependent, the withdrawal symptoms are “mild and subtle.”

So I asked George if he could describe marijuana dependency. He agreed and relayed a conversation between he and his roommate Tom that summed up marijuana dependency perfectly:

George: “I could really go for a bowl right now.”
Tom: “Me, too. But we’re all out.”
[pause]
George: “Bummer”

Wow, this cannabis dependency truly is a horrible problem. Maybe we should have a hempfest or a telethon to raise money to help these poor people who are dependent.

Thank God, addiction specialist Barbara Mason is on the case. She’s come up with a solution.
Take a pill.
She’s putting together a study using paid volunteers to take Gabapentin to ease the symptoms of their marijuana dependency.
That means that they’re looking to see if Gabapentin could make the marijuana withdrawal symptoms mild and suble.
But…
…
You know, I could really go for a Gabapentin right now.
Update: Turns out Gabapentin has a history of controversy. Back in 2002, a whistle-blower blew the case wide open in the New York Times — seems the drug companies were using all sorts of techniques to get Gabapentin (Neurontin) prescribed for dozens of off-label medical conditions — with no evidence that there was any value (and some suggestion that there could be harm).
Any way you look at it, the idea of taking a pill to deal with the relatively harmless effects of marijuana is simply insane. And as TomK notes in comments, if the person using marijuana is self-medicating for a psychological condition, switching to Gabapentin could conceivably be a dangerous idea, since there is some question as to Gabapentin’s connection to suicide risk.
More here, including the fact that Pfizer was forced to pay a record $240 million fine for fraud (plus more to settle a criminal case) for misbranding this drug.

Link

The assassins struck as lunchtime traffic congealed.
Running up alongside the car, they blasted through the windows of the white Mazda. Trapped in traffic, trapped in their car, the passengers never had a chance.
Only after the shooting was over did the gunmen realize their intended targets were in another white sedan stuck in the same traffic jam.
Footage from a traffic camera shows them run forward and fire through the windows of the Honda. Darting away through the stationary cars, the hit men run to a waiting motorcycle and escape.

The gunmen were members of the infamous Absolut family — a Cali-based vodka smuggling ring. The target was the head of a rival cartel — a shadowy figure known only as the Grey Goose. This is part of a continuing escalation of violence as the two groups fight over control of the market….
Oh… wait… my bad. Turns out it wasn’t alcohol smugglers after all, but drug cartels. Hmmm…. I wonder why there aren’t any Absolut/Grey Goose shoot-outs? After all, they’re both heavily competing for the same lucrative market for premium vodkas.
Oh, yeah. Because alcohol is legal.
So the competing vodkas still fight each other, but the weapons they use are glossy advertisements in magazines, and clever graphic design.

And, frankly, if you’re stuck in traffic in a white sedan, odds are you have no need to worry about assassination by a glossy advert.
So, to recap the difference between prohibition and not-prohibition as a means of achieving market dominance:

• Prohibition: Innocent bystanders getting shot to death in their car in a traffic jam
• Not-prohibition: Cute graphics.