Drug WarRant

Link

SSDP is excited to announce that speakers for this year’s SSDP conference include Clarence Page (Chicago Tribune), Terry Michael (former DNC Press Secretary), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (invited), Radley Balko (Reason Magazine), Pete Guither (Drug War Rant), Ethan Nadelmann, (Drug Policy Alliance), Rob Kampia (Marijuana Policy Project), Steph Sherer (Americans for Safe Access), and more! Register now at http://www.ssdp.org/conference.

I’m looking forward to it!

Yes, I turn [insert large number here] today.
The best present I could get would be for all of you to vote in two weeks and get rid of some of the bums in Congress, or at least get them out of their committee chair positions. And to help get the initiatives passed in Nevada, Colorado, South Dakota…
But if you’re still looking for something, it’s another excuse to contribute to the Drug WarRant laptop fund. I’ve already raised about $300.

Of course, it’s still too early to know for sure how marijuana may be used to combat Alzheimer’s, but the indications are that it shows much more promise than the current corporate drugs.
Fred Gardner has a nice piece on this topic at CounterPunch, with a recap of the scientific reports on this from Paul Armentano.
One of Gardner’s comments (a suggestion to study the effects of cannabis on Alzheimer’s rage in Oregon) reminded me of one of the most outrageous aspects of the federal government’s war on medical marijuana — their refusal to fund or allow research while claiming that there isn’t enough research to support marijuana’s medical claims. They now have 11 states that could be research laboratories for this very thing, yet they refuse to find out (because they already know the answer — marijuana works). Just like the fact that they refuse to study the patients that they have supplied marijuana to for decades.

In Dumaguete City in the Philippines, it will soon be illegal to display a picture of a marijuana leaf. This is, of course, in order to “protect the morality of society.”
The notion is laughable, because all this will do is create an increased interest in finding ways around the law. I’m betting that by the time this ordinance is enacted, some enterprising individual will be selling stickers with a single green maple leaf (or some other multi-pointed leaf), and everyone will know what it represents.

thehim’s Drug War Roundup is a must-read this week. He discusses the controversial Kos case for the libertarian Democrat in a way that defines what to me has been the major conflict within the blogosphere’s definition of libertarianism.
I agree wholeheartedly with thehim’s statement:

I believe that there’s one absolute in libertarianism, that human beings have a right to free will and that society progresses most when no entity has the ability to impose a particular morality on others. Each person should be free to dictate their own choices in life, and those entrusted with law and order can only get involved if those choices interfere with someone else’s freedom.

I also believe that this principle of individual libertarianism trumps all the various corporate and tax libertarianisms (often promoted by those identified with the conservative wing of libertarianism). And it is that core principle of libertarianism that demands an end to the drug war, regardless of whether it is wielded by democrats, republicans, or… Libertarians.

I went back to my undergraduate college this weekend for my 30th college reunion. It got me thinking about my days as a college student in the 70s and comparing it to the present, particularly in terms of the drug war.
This comparison only specifically concerns a small sub-set of society — college life. I had a good idea what was going on then, and I have a good idea what goes on now through my position as a university employee with close connections to students.
When I was a student, the drug war had started, but the focus was more… limited. College students smoked pot, or didn’t, as they wished, and everybody knew about it and nobody cared. I personally witnessed a situation where students were smoking pot in the common residence hall television room on the first floor when the campus police came by. They ducked their head in and asked if they could close the door — the smoke was getting a little thick in the hallway.
While it was certainly wrong for pot to be illegal (and we all knew that), there was a kind of treaty that existed. The campus and town police left the college students alone as long as they kept it indoors or out of general public view (you needed to be discrete at football games because of the public in attendance, but you could smoke obviously at the soccer games because really only college students attended). The only other rule was that the high school kids were off-limits. As soon as a college student sold to a high school student, the police came down hard.
Some students tried other drugs. Most didn’t. Pot and alcohol were the drugs of choice and they didn’t lead to harder drugs. The group of students that drank the most (the Owls), were known for getting drunk and smashing things or people. The group of students that smoked pot the most (the Delts) were the most peaceful. (In fairness, another group – the Milts — were major beer drinkers and almost as gentle as the Delts.)
Now move ahead 30 years. College students smoke pot, or they don’t, as they wish. Some try other drugs. Most don’t. The difference is that now we’ve escalated the war. We’re spending huge amounts of money on it, and occasionally, for no good reason, students get caught and their lives are ruined (financial aid revoked, kicked out of school or housing). Additionally, there’s no difference between selling pot to college students or to high school students.
Pot use appears roughly as prevalent today in college as it was 30 years ago. Pot use caused very little problem 30 years ago and it causes very little problem now. The drug war escalation, however, has made things worse in the little microcosm of college life, as it has in society as a whole.
The greatest fear of the drug warriors is not that pot will become legal in Nevada or Colorado. Their greatest fear is that after it becomes legal it will be not much of a problem. Because when people discover that fact, the drug war gravy train will come to an end.

There was a time when the Drug Czar and his minions could show up somewhere, spout their lies and misdirection, and the media would dutifully repeat it as established gospel. But it’s getting harder for them.
Check out this editorial by the Argus Leader in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. ONDCP’s Scott Burns had been in South Dakota doing his usual act and it got a somewhat chilly response:

Burns’ position – and the federal government’s – isn’t just hypocritical. It’s contradictory. On the one hand, he says we can’t scare young people away from drug use; we have to give them scientific facts. Then he ignores the facts.
It’s a mirror of the 70-year-old classic anti-drug propaganda movie “Reefer Madness.” The beginning crawl calls marijuana “The Real Public Enemy Number ONE!!”
In the movie, a school principal tells the PTA of “a young boy … under the influence of drugs … who killed his entire family with an axe.
“… the next tragedy may be that of your daughter’s … or your son’s … or yours … or yours … (then, pointing to the camera) OR YOURS!”
No, by all means, let’s not try to scare people. Let’s give them the scientific facts.
There might be good reasons to vote against our medical marijuana measure on Nov. 7, but the science isn’t one of them. Neither are the government scare tactics.

By the way, be sure to check out the South Dakota for Medical Marijuana blog.

One of my favorite drug war liars, Andrea Barthwell, has shown up in Colorado to lobby against Amendment 44. She mostly gave some really lame arguments that were easily countered by Mason Tvert.
And then Tvert hit back, noting that Andrea has a potential financial interest in keeping marijuana illegal because of her job lobbying for Sativex.
Barthwell actually then claimed that Sativex “is so far removed from marijuana that it is not recognizable.”
Yeah, Andrea, in much the same way that carrot juice is so far removed from carrots that it is not recognizable.

“bullet” Via Phillip Smith, Peter Cohen’s A comment on ‘Sweden’s successful drug policy: a review of the evidence’ UNODC September 2006. This is an insightful look at how the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime cherry-picks statistics, changes term definitions and dishonestly manipulates the facts in order to justify its drug war.
“bullet” A very fun rant against the drug war by cyclist Patrick O’Grady.
“bullet” Between Nevada, Colorado, and South Dakota, the White House Office of Drug Propaganda and Drug War Lobbying is getting quite a work-out. Our tax dollars hard at work telling us how to vote.

Earlier I passed on a BBC report that Afghanistan was closing down the Senlis Council offices in that country. (The Senlis Council is a think tank that has advocated non-drug-war solutions.) As the Drug War Chronicle reports today, that appears to be more wishful thinking on the part of some of the drug warriors.
The Senlis Council is not going anywhere, and they’re actually using this opportunity to continue the dialog. Good for them.