Drug WarRant

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.

I was curious to see what George Will would say about the drug war in his new column in this coming Monday’s Newsweek: Prohibition II: Good Grief. It started out on track…

When government restricts Americans’ choices, ostensibly for their own good, someone is going to profit from the paternalism.
Perhaps Prohibition II is being launched because Prohibition I worked so well at getting rid of gin. Or maybe the point is to reassure social conservatives that Republicans remain resolved to purify Americans’ behavior. Incorrigible cynics will say Prohibition II is being undertaken because someone stands to make money from interfering with other people making money.

But then I got a little confused

For whatever reason, last Friday the president signed into law Prohibition II. You almost have to admire the government’s plucky refusal to heed history’s warnings about the probable futility of this adventure.

Huh? How did he sign the drug war into law when it’s already been going on for decades?

This time the government is prohibiting Internet gambling by making it illegal for banks or credit-card companies to process payments to online gambling operations on a list the government will prepare.

… Oh.
Well, I agree with much of what he says about the internet gambling ban, but…
How can you talk about Prohibition I and Prohibition II and never mention the drug war?

The drug czar’s office (along with major segments of the law enforcement community) has been getting pretty hysterical about the notion of the marijuana legalization initiatives in Nevada and Colorado. Gee, it’s almost as if their jobs were being threatened…
It’s fascinating to watch the melt-down and how far they’ll go to demonize marijuana. For Walters to trot out this dog-and-pony show is just bizarre (Marijuana causes you to drive 85 in a 45 mph zone and kill someone? I don’t think so. And the notion that they really couldn’t do anything to the driver because of the lack of drug laws is just… stupid.)
Of course, you always want to take advantage of the drug-fear-de-jour, so the drug warriors are working hard to tie marijuana legalization to… that’s right — Meth.
Perennial Nevada idiot Guy Farmer got into it early:

In 2004 Carson City Justice of the Peace John Tatro told me that at least half of the meth abusers who appear before him also tested positive for marijuana. And just last month the Appeal published a graphic example of how marijuana can lead to the use of hard drugs. It was the story of 17-year-old Cyndle Bell of Carson City and her personal battle against meth addiction, which she chronicled in a 15-minute documentary produced as her senior project at Carson High School.

There was also a law enforcement officer recently (see update below) who said that practically every marijuana case he saw also involved methamphetamines.
The drug czar’s office wouldn’t want to miss out on that kind of action, so we have “Plan called a meth gateway” in the Denver Post this week, with nonsense from ONDCP associate deputy director John Horton:

A proposal on the state ballot to loosen marijuana laws in Colorado would make it harder to fight the war on methamphetamine abuse, a federal drug official said Monday.
John Horton, a former Oregon prosecutor, said Amendment 44 – which would allow people 21 and older to legally possess an ounce or less of pot – would make marijuana accessible to more people and allow them to fall victim to the highly-addictive and destructive properties of methamphetamines.
“Many meth addicts say they started with marijuana,” said Horton. “So I don’t think we want Colorado to be a testing ground for new marijuana laws.”

Of course, the truth is that marijuana use does not lead to meth (or any other drug for that matter). The so-called gateway theory is dragged out and mis-used time and time again. Note Horton’s last statement: “many meth addicts say they started with marijuana.” That’s intended to lead you to believe that marijuana led them to meth and would lead others to meth, which is simple nonsense. Those who use the so-called “hard” drugs are more likely to try everything else (like alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, coffee) first. If marijuana wasn’t available, they’d take another path to get there.
The only other legitimate “gateway” effect is the connection that drugs have due to their illegality, and the potential that it is easier to buy one illegal drug if you’re already buying drugs from criminals (of course, marijuana legalization efforts actually remove this potential).
If you want a quick and easy method to see if marijuana leads to meth, just look at the government’s own figures. If marijuana caused meth use, then the people in the blue bars in this chart would be ending up in the red bars.

Hmmm… Doesn’t seem to be happening. Even if we assume that every single meth user is also a marijuana user, the percentage of marijuana users who end up using meth is practically insignificant.
But of course that won’t deter the drug warriors from their scare tactics.
Now all we need is a chart to determine if being a drug warrior is a gateway to lying.
Update: Sukoi found the video with the Nevada law enforcement officer’s quote. Amendment 44 Legal Marijuana Conference. It’s drug warrior Pete Hautzinger (Mesa County District Attorney):

“I virtually never see a possession of marijuana case that doesn’t also involve methamphetamines.”

“bullet” See Brian Bennett’s excellent charts on Methamphetamine usage that help give a bigger picture.

There are rumors out there that another Congressman may get nailed in the page scandals (this time involving a 16-year-old girl). Some of the rumors are pointing to a lesser-known Congressman from Illinois who is a real drug war cheerleader.
Interesting…

Over at Townhall (with a fairly spirited comments section) is the always excellent Sullum with: Potheads, puritans and pragmatists: Two marijuana initiatives put drug warriors on the defensive.