Drug WarRant

Radley said it right…

Finally, a serious inquiry into Johnston’s death should take a critical, sweeping look at the fundamental nature of drug policing. The Atlanta Journal reported last month that a misguided focus on arrest numbers and stacking statistics have led to low morale, short-cutting, and conducting high-stakes raids resulting in paltry amounts of contraband. The lure of a big bust, as was promised by the real informant in the Johnston case (a suspect arrested on other charges who said police would find a kilogram of cocaine in Johnston’s home) can make a career, tempting officers to cut corners.
A proper look into Johnston’s death, then, wouldn’t end with the lying narcotics officers. It would include criticism of the entire culture of the city’s drug policing. It would include criticism not just of the police, but also of prosecutors and judges. It would reevaluate long-standing policies on the proper way to conduct a drug investigation. And it would ask tough questions about the goals, priorities, and very nature of drug policing.
To their credit, the Johnston family is calling for precisely that kind of sweeping review.

Read the whole thing.

Word is out (via NORML) that DEA Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner has ruled today in favor of Lyle Craker/MAPS. This, if it holds, would finally break the monopoly on research marijuana currently held by NIDA/DEA. The key is that no researcher wants to study potential commercial applications of marijuana if they’re dependent on the government for their supply (particularly when the government only grows low-grade schwag. The 87-page decision (pdf) includes:

“I conclude that granting Respondent’s application would not be inconsistent with the Single Convention, that there would be minimal risk of diversion of
marijuana resulting from Respondent’s registration, that there is currently an inadequate supply of marijuana available for research purposes, that competition in the provision of marijuana for such purposes is inadequate, and that Respondent has complied with applicable laws and has never been convicted of any violation of any law pertaining to controlled substances. I therefore find that Respondent’s registration to cultivate marijuana would be in the public interest.”

Press release should be out in the morning. Of course, the DEA will probably start working on ways to block this development.
In related news, a study using the government’s low-quality pot had good, if unsurprising results:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Smoking marijuana eases a type of chronic foot pain in people with the AIDS virus, according to a study published on Monday that the researchers touted as demonstrating marijuana’s medicinal benefits. […]
The study, appearing in the journal Neurology, focused on sensory neuropathy — a kind of severe nerve pain usually felt as aching, painful numbness and burning in the feet — associated with human immunodeficiency virus infection.

And naturally:

But the White House drug policy office said the research was flawed and offered only “false hope.” […]
David Murray, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy’s chief scientist, said the suffering of AIDS patients is an issue of great concern.
“Unfortunately, this particular study is not terribly convincing,” Murray said, citing what he saw as methodological problems.
“Unfortunately, it will lead many people into a false hope that street marijuana is somehow going to be the thing I can use that will make me feel better and won’t jeopardize my health. Now that is a fraud and a dangerous one,” he told Reuters.

Murray, you inhuman, sadistic putz. Unsupported claims of a cure can be called “false hope.” But a symptom reliever cannot, by definition be called “false hope.” Either it relieves symptoms or it doesn’t. Period. There’s nothing that can be false hope about it. And you have absolutely no evidence that marijuana will jeopardize anyone’s health.
Update: For further reading on the decision regarding growing non-government pot for research, see Boston Globe. San Francisco Gate has a good article on the medical marijuana research for HIV patients.

Use. Abuse. Two completely different words. Sure, they have some letters in common, and they have connections to each other, but there are different words. Sure, there are a few words where you can add a couple of letters without changing their meaning, such as regardless/irregardless or oriented/orientated. Use and abuse don’t work that way.
And yet, the ONDCP, the DEA and most of the prohibitionists have undertaken a systematic campaign to blur or eliminate the difference in meaning. And, to a large extent, they have succeeded. Take a look at this surreal example in a opening of a recent AP story:

Drug Czar Says Drug Abuse Has Declined

Illegal drug use in the United States has dropped sharply since 2001, but abuse of prescription drugs remains a problem, the director of National Drug Control Policy said Friday.

What?
Am I out of line, here? Let’s go to the American Heritage Dictionary:

Use: To take or consume; partake of
Abuse: To use wrongly or improperly; misuse

Clearly different meanings. In fact, the definition of “abuse” even refers to “use” as a different word! American Heritage also has a specific definition for substance abuse: “The overindulgence in and dependence on an addictive substance, especially alcohol or a narcotic drug.” Overindulgence in, dependence on. Not use. Abuse.
Take a look at the ONDCP’s schizophrenic approach toward these terms in the new 2007 National Drug Control Strategy. From the introduction:

To focus the Nation‰s drug control efforts directly on the problem of drug abuse, the President set ambitious goals for driving down illicit substance use in America.

What?
It gets even muddier as you read the document, which contains:

• 211 instances of the word “use”
• 77 instances of the word “abuse”
• 109 instances of the phrase “drug use” or “substance use”
• 56 instances of the phrase “drug abuse” or “substance abuse”
• 53 instances of “user” or “users”
• 7 instances of “abuser” or “abusers”

When I moderated a debate with William Otis (Counselor to the Administrator of the DEA), I asked him point blank whether there was a difference between “use” and “abuse” when it comes to illegal drugs, and he said “No.”
Why?
Prohibitionists in general, and the administration in particular, need to blur the distinction for several reasons.
First, it’s easier to demonize when you don’t have to make distinctions of casual use versus addiction, or marijuana versus heroin, etc. They’re all just druggies.
Second, admitting that there is such a thing as responsible or casual use would require them to confront the notion that people who are of no danger to themselves or others are having their lives destroyed by their government.
Third, and most important, they need to invent a reachable goal. They need numbers showing that the drug war works. That ain’t easy. But it doesn’t matter to the government if those numbers really mean anything — only that they provide some public relations cover for their war.
If you’re the government and you want to show a decrease in the “drug problem,” what do you do? Try to help heroin addicts? No percentages in that — their numbers are too small, and it takes some real effort. How about even hard core marijuana users? Still, too few and too difficult.
There is, however, an easy secret target — the casual marijuana user. We’re talking about the person who enjoys having pot with friends now and then — no big deal — a get-together on the weekend, or whatever. These make up the largest population of illicit drug users in America, and are the easiest to sway. This population is more susceptible to scare tactics, because… it’s no big deal to them. They can have a beer instead of pot and it’s no great loss. Marijuana is just something they enjoy. So when the government demonizes marijuana, they can often get a percentage of this large group to stop using marijuana (or become afraid to admit using it in surveys, which amounts to the same statistical value).
So when you see the Drug Czar bragging about the success of his efforts through reductions in numbers, this is because he has already destroyed the meaning of “use” and “abuse.”
This approach does absolutely nothing to help those with drug problems. It does absolutely nothing to address abuse. This destruction of the English language is so the government can harm people who have no problem with drugs as a tactic toward proclaiming victory.

Story at The Agitator.

It constantly amazes me that the prohibitionist politicians out there aren’t satisfied with banning drugs, but they want to ban everything else as well, in the name of the drug war. Pipes, rolling papers, roach clips, a banner with “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” written on it, glass vases, coffee stirrers, look-alike substances, marijuana flavored candy, cigar wrappers, needles, cold medicines… you name it.
Now some politicians in North Carolina want to ban empty space. The Kinston Free Press is having none of it.

State Rep. Tim Moore, R-Cleveland, is well-intentioned, but seriously misguided when he proposes a new state law making it a felony for people to “have any compartment, space or box” in their vehicle for the purposes of hiding illegal items.
Let’s really think about this. If this law were passed, it would make it illegal to have empty space in your vehicle.
Empty space. Why could it possibly be the government’s business if you want to conceal something in your car? Some folks might want to hide sensitive documents, cash, legally possessed guns or a computer.
Moore says he filed the bill at the request of the Cleveland County Sheriff’s Office, whose officers lament that sometimes they pull over vehicles after drugs have been delivered. That is, the secret compartment is empty. Sorry, folks, but this is not the way our country should work. Innocent until proven empty? Give us a break!
This is like saying, “Your car is capable of going 180 mph, so we’re going to charge you with speeding.”

Next up: going after people who have empty body cavities where they might hide drugs…

Remember the discussions about Barry Cooper, the ex-cop who was marketing the Never Get Busted video? There was some divided opinion within the drug policy reform community, whether this guy was legit or an opportunist, or some combination thereof.
While I haven’t had a chance to see it yet, others now have viewed the video, and it appears that the “combination thereof” description may fit.
Mark Draughn has a review of the video here, and there’s some detailed analysis at Flex Your Rights
While there appears to be a fair amount of useful information, there’s one very glaring problem: Barry Cooper recommends consenting to a search if you’re holding.

Even though you have the constitutional right to refuse consent — when you refuse it raises a huge red flag. You could almost call it a huge reasonable suspicion.

That is just plain wrong. Constitutionally. Morally. Ethically. And just about every other way. What Barry Cooper is saying is that the Constitution is meaningless and the police will, in every instance, violate your Constitutional rights. I don’t believe that we’re that far gone yet. But even if he was right — if standing on your right to refuse consent would cause the police to search and that they’d manipulate the truth to get away with it, I still think it is right to stand up for your rights.
And what we need to do is continue to make sure that everyone knows that they have the right to not consent to a search, and that people who are not holding should also not consent to a search (in fact, I actually wish a cop would ask to search my car, just so I could refuse).
You may find the video interesting, or useful, but I’d advise against following Barry Cooper’s advice in this one area.
Update: Via Tanya (breaking my heart), I learn that Loretta Nall has reviewed it in detail and wants her money back.

TV 10 in San Diego has a story out Who is Winning the War On Drugs?. It’s pretty standard TV journalism fare — a mention of LEAP and alcohol prohibition, some good points, some ignorant points. Overall, a reasonable balance for such a source.
But then they decide to do a poll. An actual, four question SurveyUSA News Poll of San Diegans’ view on drugs, the drug war, and prohibition. Only a sample of 500 adults, but still, potentially interesting. The results of Question 3 (Would you say it is fair? Or unfair? To compare the war on drugs with the Prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s and 30’s?) are pretty depressing.
But then you come to Question 4. Here is the actual survey question that a news entity asked of 500 San Diego residents:

In general, do you think drug use should be treated more like a crime? Or more like a disease?

Yep. Those were the options. “Crime” or “Disease” (or you could answer “Not Sure”)
So I’d like to ask the imbeciles at KGTV in San Diego a couple of questions:

• In general, do you think eating steak should be treated more like a crime? Or more like a disease?
• In general, do you think that driving a motorcycle should be treated more like a crime? Or more like a disease?
• In general, do you think that having wine with dinner should be treated more like a crime? Or more like a disease?
• In general, do you think that taking aspirin for a headache should be treated more like a crime? Or more like a disease?
• In general, do you think that watching KGTV TV-10 should be treated more like a crime? Or more like a disease?

Today, the DEA unveiled the next tour stop of their offensive “Target America” exhibit.
From what I can tell, it’s pretty pathetic — a small part of the exhibit that was at the Museum of Science and Industry, moved to the hallway in the lower level of Navy Pier in Chicago, next to the escalators, near the stained glass exhibit.
As far as I can tell so far, the media has had very little interest in even mentioning it (as of this moment, a TV station clear across the state in Moline, Illinois is the only one besides the DEA reporting it).
It seems likely that our efforts to protest the exhibit at the Museum of Science and Industry have had an effect — and alerted the media that this is biased propaganda.
Our website responding to the DEA exhibit — DEA Targets America — has gotten quite a bit of visibility.
This partial exhibit will be at Navy Pier until September. It seems unlikely that there will be another exhibit after this one.

And Carlson wins in a knockout.
Watch this video all the way through and see how Tucker continually sets up Souder and lets him hang himself. The end of it is classic!

Here’s a rough transcript of the last part:

Carlson: … and how many people died from marijuana overdoses last year?

Souder: Uh, if you count the, uh, uh, amount of crime associated with marijuana…

Carlson: No, no, just marijuana overdoses. Just the drug itself, which you said is like cocaine now. How many people died from it?

Souder: Uh, I don’t, I don’t, uh. 65 percent of emergency room admissions for drug abuse are marijuana.

Carlson: Huh. OK. But did anyone die that you know of?

Souder: Uh, presumably so, thousands have died, the only question is, you said “overdose” –that isn’t even most of the deaths related to prescription drug or to cocaine or heroin — there’s a whole range of drug crimes and so on. I don’t know the number of overdose. Marijuana is often managed ah, with meth —
no drug user is a single drug user so marijuana is often in the mix of most deaths so it would be very hard to separate what’s what. A marijuana user is very seldom just a casual marijuana user, ah, except in the early stages, they’re often gonna polydrug.

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

But I appreciate you coming on. Thanks a lot, Congressman.

Souder: Thank you, Tucker.

The DEA sends out a “Biweekly E-mail Informant” where they brag about their recent arrests, and sometimes it’s just embarrassing when they try to be hip, fly, phat, groovy and happenin’
Here are the headlines for the current issue:

• Operation Polar Express Puts the Chill on Boston Ecstasy Traffickers
• NYC Heroin Trafficker Trades in Bling and Classic Cars for Jail Time
• Sour Grapes for the Vineland Boys: San Fernando Valley Gangsters get Decades-Long Prison Terms

Here’s another odd moment in one of the pieces:

“This group marketed their Ecstasy by using images such as superman, a bat, a kangaroo, and even the Statue of Liberty. It’s ironic that a group of traffickers who chose to use our symbol of liberty now face losing theirs,” said DEA Special Agent in Charge of the New England Field Division, June Stansbury.

There is, in fact, more irony in Stansbury’s statement — representing, as she does, an agency that works to take away Americans’ freedom — than there is in the Ecstasy images.