Drug WarRant

OK, call me a glass half-full kind of guy. I know a lot of people are really disappointed by the loss of all three major initiatives (legalization in Nevada and Colorado; medical marijuana in South Dakota), and I am disappointed, too. But it’s not the end of the world, and in fact, there’s quite a lot to be pleased with in the results of those initiatives.
Despite the full weight of the federal government using taxpayer money to oppose the initiatives; despite various local and state officials improperly (perhaps illegally) using their offices to campaign against and spread falsehoods; despite the fact that voters knew this would create a conflict with federal law; despite the decades of propaganda…

• Combined, close to one million people voted in favor of these initiatives (in a midterm election in not highly populated states).
• All three initiatives got respectable percentages in the 40’s (unlike drug warrior Earnest Istook, who only got 34% in the Oklahoma governor race).
• The South Dakota medical marijuana initiative lost by only 16,000 votes.
• As daksya notes, the demographics look to be on our side long-term.

Not bad. And in the process, there was even some national coverage and discussion of these issues. Seeds were sown.
Kudos to those who worked so hard on those initiatives. It’s got to be particularly hard for you right now, but be proud of what you did.
And kudos also to those independent candidates around the country tilting at windmills and getting more people to talk about drug policy reform.
Now we’ve got to do our job to continue to educate and motivate people, stripping away the layers and years of lies, softening up the masses for the next round.
Update: See this chart for information on all the marijuana-related initiatives, including a number of smaller ones that we won in Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Santa Monica (California), Missoula County (Montana), and four districts in Massachusetts.

With the Democrats taking the House, the biggest thing to happen is a shift in committee chairs. The new head of the House Government Reform Committee (which includes Drug Policy) will most certainly be Henry Waxman (CA).
Waxman voted in favor of the Hinchey Amendment to prevent the feds from interfering with medical marijuana states. He also voted to cut funding to Plan Colombia, and voted against increasing Byrne Justice Assistance grant funding.
Representative Waxman has also been an outspoken critic of the Administration’s use of propaganda, raising “concerns about whether Administration officials improperly used taxpayer funds to pay for efforts to influence public opinion.” Hmm… seems like a match made in heaven for investigating the ONDCP’s interference with state initiatives.
I don’t know who will be the Chair of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, but it won’t be Souder any more! (although he did win re-election to the House)
Via Scott at StopTheDrugWar.org, I see that Oklahoma moron first class Earnest Istook, who dropped out of the House to run for Governor, was demolished and will have to give up on his attempts to destroy the constitution in the name of the drug war.

Talk about the results here. CNN’s results page is a start for getting info.

A good discussion on yesterday’s voting post, so I thought I’d continue it here (these are my own thoughts — your mileage may vary). And since third party candidates are still mostly excluded by the system, I’m going to focus on the majors.
First of all, obviously if you’ve got a candidate from either party who is strongly in favor of drug policy reform, that’s great. But for the vast majority of this country, this option doesn’t exist. I can’t count the number of times that I’ve gone to a candidate’s website (when researching voting guides) and found nothing regarding drug policy.
Why? Because of us, mostly. Drug policy reform doesn’t even show up on polls as an issue people care about. I was recently polled by an independent company and I had to select “other” and write it in, despite a list of about 30 issues from which to select. The public visibility of this issue, in my mind, is lower than the public interest. And the reason is that people won’t talk about it.
How many of you are still afraid to tell your friends, your family that you support drug policy reform — an end to prohibition — even, gasp, legalization? How many other critical issues today cut this way? Can you imagine someone expressing an opinion that they are pro-choice, or pro-life — “but don’t use my real name — I need to keep my job”? Oh, sure, it probably happens, but not nearly to the extent that people stay in the closet on ending prohibition.
Until we get a larger percentage of the population willing to go public about reform, we’ll have a really tough time getting politicians of any flavor to do very much for us.
Given that reality, what can we expect from the two major parties? Both have been horrible in drug policy. Republicans through their law-and-order and moralizing planks, and Democrats from their Oh-yeah-well-I-can-be-just-as-law-and-order-as-you and protect-people-from-themselves planks (see Tip O’Neill).
Since we don’t have the clout (or the will) to get the politicians’ attention directly yet, we sometimes need to find ways to get in sideways. (This is why I think the state initiatives have been good things — they bypass, to some extent, the politicians, and let the people actually have a greater voice than they are publicly willing to have, thereby sending the politicians a message and building public confidence in the issue.)
What does this mean with the parties?
Democrats
The sideways approach is probably all that is politically viable at this point. I have had Democrats tell me that they agree with me on drug policy, but it would be political suicide for the Democrats to support it and it would undermine their ability to protect a woman’s right to choose.
However, as the old saying goes, organizing Democrats is like herding cats, and there’s a whole lot of issues they love that can be exploited and made to connect to drug policy. The environment, health care (affordable health care), racism, the poor, the machinery of war, seniors, foreign policy, AIDS, etc. This allows a lot of possibilities for them to cast votes that are favorable to incremental drug policy reform without worrying about the attack ad showing they’re soft on drugs.
Additionally, if the public ever gets to the point where they’re willing to speak out in large enough voting numbers and demand reform, the Democrats, in my opinion, will go along.
Republicans
I, quite frankly, don’t know what approach will work with the Republicans today other than a wholesale purge of the party leadership (which this election may precipitate). I’ve had plenty of Republicans tell me that they agree with me on drug policy, but these Republicans no longer have any power in their party.
There used to be all sorts of great sideways approaches to the Republicans — limited government, states’ rights, fiscal responsibility, individual responsibility, keep the damned gov’mint off my land, gun rights, foreign policy. But the current Republican leadership has completely scrapped all of those bedrock conservative principles in favor of the use of authoritarian and theocratic measures to maintain power.
Additionally, if the public ever gets to the point where they’re willing to speak out in large enough voting numbers and demand reform, I’m not sure if the current Republican leadership would go along. If they think they need to buck the public to appeal to the theocratic base or protect the interests of the pharmaceutical contributors, they’ll ignore the public’s wishes.
Conclusion: This means that at this point in time it appears that the Democrats are the best choice.
A big win for the Democrats today means

• split government for the next two years
• better chance for things like the Hinchey amendment to pass
• a potential shake-up in the Republican party that could mean a return to more traditional conservative roots, or cause libertarian conservatives to split off entirely

So for now, a Democratic win is good news for us.
Now, I know many of my loyal readers are unhappy when I talk about incremental reform, and I understand that, but I believe that major reform would require getting that majority of the population out of the closet and demanding it. Incremental reform softens up the population to counter decades of propaganda — it gets them to start the process of questioning what they’ve been taught all their lives. It’s hard to get a massive population to completely change overnight.
I would love to see major reform happen now without all the piecemeal efforts. I’m just not sure how.

VOTE!

Over at the Drug Czar’s “blog”, they say

A new autopsy report from Florida gives us another reason to continue our focus on reducing the non-medical use of prescription drug

Say what? Your focus? This, from the office that’s been spending all its time in Nevada, Colorado, and South Dakota trying to defeat marijuana initiatives?
So I thought I’d take a closer look at the figures in Florida. Not a lot of surprises that I can see.

Drug Tracked	# of Cases	a cause of death	present only
Cocaine	927	348	579
Methadone	428	312	116
Alprazolam	489	194	295
Oxycodone	377	185	192
Ethyl Alcohol	1,754	160	1,594
Morphine	289	106	183
Hydrocodone	346	106	240
Other Benzodiazepine	484	62	422
Diazepam	285	59	226
Fentanyl	85	51	34
Propoxyphene	155	38	117
Carisoprodol/Meprobamate	148	36	112
Heroin	36	29	7
Tramadol	59	18	41
Hydromorphone	63	13	50
Other Opioid	133	12	121
Methamphetamine	58	9	49
Meperidine	25	3	22
Amphetamine	51	3	48
MDMA	25	2	23
Nitrous Oxide	1	1	0
GHB	3	1	2
Other Methylated Amphetamine	5	1	4
MDA	18	1	17
Ketamine	1	0	1
Phencyclidine (PCP)	1	0	1
Cannabinoids	471	0	471

The vast majority of these 3,595 cases involved more than one drug listed in the report. The state’s medical examiners were asked to distinguish between the drugs being the “cause” of death or merely “present” in the body at the time of death.

Notice the item at the bottom of this list? At least the medical examiners are honest enough to know that cannabis is not going to be the cause of death. The fact that it’s even included in the list is silly.
Gee, I wonder why the Drug Czar didn’t simply say:

Once again, Cannabis was not the cause of any drug-related deaths.

In fact, it’s the safest drug on that list. By a long shot.

I hope you’re all excited and ready to vote tomorrow. Even if the options aren’t the greatest, try to find one good reason to vote for or against someone or some issue. You don’t have to vote for all of the races — you can leave some blank (I really wish you could vote “None of the Above”), but find that one race or issue where there is a difference and vote enthusiastically.
For suggestions, there are a number of good sources:

• Drug WarRant’s voting Wiki is still in development (probably won’t hit its stride until 2008), but has some outstanding information for Alaska, Maryland, and others.
• thehim has an addresses voting issues in this week’s Drug War Roundup
• Drug War Chronicle has an excellent detailed overview.
• Cannabis Culture has the 2006 Stoner Voters Guide

Of course, in many parts of the country, there are some easy ones for drug policy reformers. If you live in Nevada (marijuana legalization), Colorado (marijuana legalization), or South Dakota (medical marijuana), you already know you need to get everybody out to vote for the initiatives on the ballot. Stop being afraid to talk about it and call all your friends this evening to go vote tomorrow.
If you’re in Alabama, you’ll of course be writing in the name of Loretta Nall for Governor.
There are other races around the country deserving of attention. Check the guides above.
And then there’s Congress. I can’t emphasize enough how important it is to divide the government right now, and to get some of these sado-moralists off committee chair positions. The best way to do that is to elect a Democratic Congress. Sure, we might have to throw those bums out in two years, but right now we must at least provide some checking of the headlong rush towards authoritarianism. The drug war is a convenient tool in authoritarian movements, and will only be expanded, if the current “Republican” leadership is allowed to continue holding all branches. (I use “Republican” in quotes because the current Republican leadership is a betrayal of traditional conservative principles of limited government and fiscal and individual responsibility.)
So this is what I need you to do. If you vote for no other race at all, at least look for the one marked U.S. House of Representatives, and vote for the Democrat. Is the idiot you’re voting for any good? Unlikely. But that’s not what you’ll be voting for — you’re voting to reduce the power of Mark Souder and James Sensenbrenner, and yes, even the Drug Czar himself (imagine how the Congressional oversight hearings of the ONDCP would change with Democrats in charge of the committees).
OK, if you’re in Texas’s 14th District, vote Republican for the House, but the rest of you can vote against the Republicans.
And please, any of you in the 11th District in Illinois…. help me vote Jerry Weller out of office!
Vote!

Scott Morgan at StoptheDrugWar.org found this fascinating thing, and it deserves to be circulated:
The makers of Marinol are actually marketing their product on Google as “Legal Marijuana.” If you search for Legal Marijuana in Google, you’ll see this:

As Scott says:

Drug warriors such as Andrea Barthwell and David Murray have argued strenuously that cannabinoid-based pharmaceuticals such as Marinol and Sativex are completely different from marijuana. They’ve bristled at Rob Kampia’s claims that Sativex is “liquid marijuana” and they’ve long used the availability of Marinol as an excuse to arrest patients who prefer cultivated marijuana instead.

Of course, the drug companies want to use the law to insure that you use (and pay for) their marijuana, as opposed to the better stuff you can grow in your back yard.

As an update to the Colombia government’s mock attack on Kate Moss for destroying their country by using cocaine(!), I particularly like Kerry Howley’s take at Reason
Which goes something like this:
We should buy lingerie to support Kate Moss, so she can afford to buy more cocaine, thus providing income to the poor farmers in Colombia. If the Colombian government chooses to turn the profits from their biggest export over to criminals, that’s their problem.