Drug WarRant

“bullet” A great column by George Iliff in the TC Palm Arrests for marijuana use ruins lives needlessly

John P. Walters, our current drug czar, has said that 16 million Americans regularly use marijuana. Thus, if the horrible effects claimed for this drug were true, we should be seeing our hospitals filled with desperately ill addicts. We should be seeing thousands of highway accidents due to crazed addicts driving under the influence. We should be seeing untold amounts of violence by the pot-heads.
But this is not happening.

“bullet” Radley Balko’s Agitator continues to be a must-read. He follows up on the Cheryl Noel story (and I’m behind on adding her to the drug war victims page — if anyone has a photo of her, let me know). Also check out Militarizing Mayberry, More Bearcats and How Many Are There.
“bullet” Showtime does some fun promo efforts for their outstanding series “Weeds” and gets admonished by the ONDCP’s Tom Riley.

“There are more teens in treatment for marijuana than for alcohol dependence – Is that funny?”

Hey, Tom — most of those teens are in treatment not for marijuana dependency, but because they were referred there by the criminal justice system, and you know that, so – Is that honest?
“bullet” The video Get Off The Pot, George is currently ranked second in the Huffington Post Contagious Festival. Catchy and informative — although the “Bushie gets off the pot” line seems a bit forced — I think it would have been stronger using John Walters (and then “Johnnie” would have worked perfectly), but guess that the filmmaker probably felt that George Bush would be the more visible target for the general public to blame.
“bullet” This article in the Wall Street Journal gives an indication of just how dishonest the drug testing industry can be. Ruining innocent lives? Who cares? It’s a new alcohol test that is being used by courts to take away jobs, driving licenses or children, but it can’t tell the difference between beer and hand sanitizer.

The urine-testing industry doesn’t need federal approval for tests that aren’t used to monitor federal employees and aren’t sold over the counter. Testing firms say it is up to their clients — the courts and licensing boards — to decide how to use the results.

Windypundit stopped by yesterday while I was passing out flyers.
He’s got some excellent photos of the exhibit, plus a couple of me and the “line of death” that museum officials wouldn’t allow me to cross.

Nice job by Kari Lydersen! Read the whole thing. A couple of quotes from yours truly, but a big thanks goes to Tom Angell, Jeanne Barr, George Pappas and others from SSDP who have been involved.
Welcome, Washington Post readers. Check out the posts below for more on the exhibit and our response.
Update: I’d like to address one quote from the DEA in the article:

DEA spokesman Steve Robertson responded: “We’re a law enforcement agency — we enforce the laws as they are written. Congress makes the laws.

In a pure system, that could very well be true. It is, in fact, Congress that has to step up to the plate to enact meaningful reform. However, the DEA in particular cannot get off the hook that easily. And that’s because they are not just a law enforcement agency (maybe not even primarily a law enforcement agency). They function as drug war cheerleaders and extremely active lobbyists. They constantly attempt to sway public opinion and promote their activities. They use tax dollars to lie to the people, and they even look for opportunities to silence opposition. Remember Karen Tandy’s blatant rejoicing when Marc Emery was arrested… because it would strike a blow at legalization proponents?

“a significant blow … to the marijuana legalization movement… Hundreds of thousands of dollars of Emery’s illicit profits are known to have been channeled to marijuana legalization groups active in the United States and Canada. Drug legalization lobbyists now have one less pot of money to rely on.”

So, no. The DEA cannot escape responsibility for the evils of prohibition by simply claiming that they’re enforcing the law.
As far as the second line in Steve Robertson’s quote:

People say if we didn’t have [drug] laws there wouldn’t be a problem, but there was a problem before and that’s why laws were established.”

That’s just wrong.

1. I don’t know of a single drug policy reformer that says we shouldn’t have drug laws. Most reformers are looking for regulation laws rather than prohibition laws.
2. I don’t know of a single drug policy reformer that says there wouldn’t be a drug problem if we didn’t have laws. They simply say that the problems are far worse and more numerous under prohibition.
3. “there was a problem before and that’s why laws were established.” Uh, no.

I just spent most of a day at the Museum of Science and Industry, and I have come to the conclusion that the Museum is utterly embarrassed by the exhibit they are hosting from the DEA.
It shows up in so many little things.

• A friend of mine who works at the museum told me he was holding off making a judgment until he’d had a chance to see it — most of the museum staff had not — but of those who had seen it, about half hated it.
• Another staff member I didn’t know but struck up conversation with was upset with the museum administration. “They just sprung it on us! No advance preparation — just ‘Oh, by the way, there’s a new exhibit opening tomorrow.'” He thought it was pretty stupid.
• The museum itself seems to have avoided any publicity. No press releases specifically about the exhibit — they left that to the DEA. Very little advance info on the website — they finally updated the website today with a bunch of information that I assume was provided by the DEA (although I don’t know that for sure).
• There were no signs in the museum today saying that the exhibit existed, nor was it on the map. I had to ask for directions and finally found it — accessing it the only way you can, by turning a hard right at the top of the second escalator, go through Networld, and the World Live Theatre, and the Whispering Gallery (ah, memories), turn right through Imaging, and then finally a left into the exhibit (which has warning sign at the door saying it might not be appropriate for children).
• It was included in today’s museum newsletter, but as the third item — after ‘one month left for the Da Vinci exhibit’ and ‘three days left in the raffle.’
• The main sponsor – McDonald’s – talks about its support of SUE at the Field Museum, but as yet doesn’t even mention Target America
• Finally, the degree to which upper museum administration staff I interacted with were almost pathetically anxious to find ways to limit our ability to pass out flyers seemed like a desperate attempt to reduce visibility for the exhibit. They weren’t even interested in looking at what our flyer said (they may have already known by downloading it on the website – they were expecting me). It felt more that they didn’t want any attention paid to that particular exhibit.

There’s good reason for them to be embarrassed. The first five minutes I spent in the exhibit, I couldn’t stop laughing. Now, part of that is my knowledge of how the DEA works (something that the museum staff probably don’t have), but even still — the degree to which it was a blatant effort to manipulate people emotionally while acting as a two floor infomercial for the DEA was astonishing. The shamelessness with which they have a display about Peter Bensinger with picture and articles (Oh, that’s right — he helped fund the exhibit). Or the mere fact that they have a display on Anslinger! In fact, one of the video monitors was actually showing a DEA infomercial. Another one had Karen Tandy talking, while yet another was playing the frying pan TV commercial.
If Lisa Miner or Joel M. Asprooth from the Museum is reading this, feel free to correct me. Tell me that you’re proud of the exhibit. You know from our conversation with what high regard I hold the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. As I mentioned this morning, it’s my favorite museum of all time.
It seems to me that if you were actually proud of the exhibit, you’d welcome a dialog. You’d want someone to debate us and show us that we’re wrong, or something. You’d think that showing people another point of view than the DEA’s would be valuable, so people could make up their minds. But despite the fact that you have told me that there is approval process in the museum, and someone from outside can’t just plop down an exhibit — that’s exactly what it looks like. I’ve worked with museum curators, and I know the process. Every single museum curator I know would find this exhibit embarrassing. And you should, too. I guess maybe you do.
More on the exhibit, and today’s experiences at the museum later…

So the DEA held a press conference today for the opening of the offensive DEA exhibit at the Museum of Science and Industry. Of course, we weren’t allowed to attend. Press credentials required. They wouldn’t want to have to face any real questions.
However, they might have been a bit surprised. Several of the press that planned to attend had already talked to us prior to the press conference. I’d love to hear a report.
Here’s our press release and, of course, our response website: DEA Targets America.
I’m heading up there in a few hours and plan to be there all day Friday and Saturday — others will be joining me. Feel free to stop by and join in the fun. We’re taking a very non-confrontational approach — simply helping museum patrons learn more about the real costs of prohibition.
After all, as one report has already mentioned:

The goal of the exhibit, [DEA’s Garrison] Courtney added, was to spark conversations that might not have started at home.

We’ll be passing out flyers to spark conversations. As new articles about the exhibit come out in the press, those who can’t be at the exhibit passing out flyers, can engage a conversation through letters to the editor.
Update: Chicago Tribune gives it a mostly promo-piece by Josh Noel, but it does include:

A heavy effort is made to link drugs to terrorism, and near an enormous image of Osama bin Laden it is noted that Al Qaeda has thrived in the drug trade. But the connection isn’t always as clear: In the “Impact on the World” display, images from the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks sit beside a photo described as “addicts getting high.”
Even Bensinger had a hard time explaining it.
The exhibit also includes browned and distorted pieces of the World Trade Center, which sit in the middle of the hall beside pieces of the Pentagon.
The link between drugs and those pieces of wreckage seems circuitous at best, leading critics to say the exhibit is more like propaganda than an objective treatment of the topic.

2nd Update: Sun Times comes out (and they’re one of the sponsors).

The exhibit has already been shown in several cities, most recently Detroit. It has drawn criticism from some groups that say it’s more DEA publicity than education and that it ignores the argument that criminalizing drugs creates the lucrative, underground trade that ends up financing terrorism.
Tandy discounted the criticism. “I think it’s hard for these groups because the facts aren’t on their side. That’s all they can say.”

What a blatant dodge to avoid answering the criticism! Facts aren’t on our side? Try going to http://www.DEAtargetsAmerica.com and saying that.

From the Gulf Times in Qatar:

KABUL: The war against drugs in Afghanistan is a failure and the strategy needs to be changed, the top UN official in the world’s biggest heroin-producing country said yesterday.
“Nobody can say that we have been successful if the poppy production has increased,” Tom Koenigs, the UN Secretary-General’s special representative in Afghanistan, told a monthly press conference.
“Certainly the strategy and the effort have to be rethought,” said Koenigs, adding: “The problem has increased and the remedy has to adjust.”

Gee, if only someone could come up with a solution. Oh, that’s right. Someone did.
We’ve been talking about it here for some time.. The Senlis Council has been working on a detailed feasibility study, and senior conservative MPs in Britain have urged this approach.
Of course the U.N. drug czar and representatives can’t consider a proposal that’s economically and logically sound, but doesn’t involve destroying, seizing, or arresting.
So all they can do is scratch their heads and say, “Boy, this is a tough one!”
Update: Meanwhile, our own drug czar decides to increase the stupidity involved exponentially.

But Mr Walters today said that eradicating the opium crop was the only way for Afghanistan to achieve lasting peace.

Via Hit and Run and Rehabology:
The new ad campaign from DrugFree.org:

Captions (see all ads at Rehabology):

If only I had AIDS. Then you would have some idea of what I was up against. You would see famous people wearing ribbons and speaking freely about my condition. You would walk, run and bike for greater awareness of my disease. If I had AIDS, you would understand that I need treatment, not scorn.
It’d be better if I had cancer. Then you wouldn’t tell me that what I’m going through is just a phase. You wouldn’t see my condition as a lack of willpower but the disease that it truly is. There would be telethons, walks and campaigns to raise funds to end it. If I had cancer you’d understand I need treatment, not a lecture.
I’d rather have heart disease. That way you wouldn’t look at me with shame. You and I could talk openly about my problem. There would be no stigma. You could ask your friends how their family members got help. Insurance might cover it. If I had heart disease you would understand I need treatment, not hate.
I’d be better off with a brain tumor. That way you wouldn’t put off getting me the help I need. You’d understand that my condition is only going to get worse and not to hope it will go away by itself. If I had a brain tumour you’d understand I need treatment, not indifference.

Jacob Sullum has it right:

Leaving aside the scientific, conceptual, and moral issues, I’m not convinced that viewing addiction as a disease leads to less oppressive policies, as opposed to giving the war on drugs a kinder, gentler veneer by calling coercive re-education treatment instead of punishment. But let’s take the Partnership for a Drug-Free America at its word: Addiction is a disease just like cancer or AIDS. Do police arrest people for having cancer or AIDS? Do doctors treat people for cancer or AIDS against their will? Are people with cancer or AIDS disqualified from various professions because the government refuses to license them? Until the partnership’s prohibitionist propagandists start taking on these policies, I can’t even give them credit for believing their own bullshit.

Lieberman’s loss in the Connecticut primary may not seem to be of much consequence to readers of Drug WarRant. However…
The media may frame it as a vote about the Iraq war, but if there is a lesson that politicians are taking away from this event, it’s that the incumbent is not safe, and that if you aren’t representing your constituents, it doesn’t matter how much support you have from the machine. It’s a huge and scary surprise to incumbents — they haven’t really had to pay attention to us before.
This might be a good time to remind them that the general population is way ahead of politicians when it comes to issues like medical marijuana and smarter approaches than incarcerating non-violent drug offenders.
If they don’t listen, work to elect their opponents. This time, there just might be enough anti-incumbent sentiment to pull it off.
The other aspect in our favor in this particular race is that the Lieberman loss is also a defeat for neocons — the same movement that has been pushing for increased drug war tools for fighting terrorism, and increased terrorism fighting tools to go after drug users, and reduced individual freedom for everyone. It’s too early to tell if Republican neocons will be experiencing a backlash along with their favorite Democrat, but it seems possible — perhaps even likely.

In The Pantagraph:

School drug testing just doesn’t work
Once again, a school is considering the disgusting and reprehensible practice of making children pee in a cup while their teacher listens (“Drug testing now policy in district,” July 31, page A5).
It’s only for those who want to be in music or some other competitive activity, but that doesn’t make it better. It makes it incomprehensible.
First, drug testing in schools doesn’t work.
The largest study ever conducted on the topic — funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse — found that schools that engage in drug testing have identical rates of drug use to schools that don’t test their students.
But drug testing is a huge growth industry, and companies are relentless in trying to make schools feel guilty about not purchasing their product.
Second, study after study has shown that extra-curricular activities provide positive experiences that reduce the likelihood of kids using drugs. By testing only those who try out for these positive activities, you drive away the at-risk kids who could benefit, leaving them, where? On the streets?
Logically, it would make much more sense for schools to test only the kids who are not participating. But that’s illegal. So in order to appear to be doing something useful, schools make the problem worse by sweeping at-risk kids under the rug.
Is there something good that schools can do? Absolutely. Put that drug testing money into band uniforms. Add more opportunities and incentives for kids to participate in activities.
And if parents want their kids tested? Go ahead. What’s stopping you? These tests are easily available online or in local stores. Parents groups can raise money to subsidize them if they wish.
And if listening to a child urinate is even appropriate, it should be done by his or her parents. Not government officials or English teachers.
Pete Guither
Bloomington

Just got back from four days without technology and I’m trying to catch up.
“bullet” Our Press Release on the DEA exhibit is out and already getting some media attention. I’ve got a couple of interviews tomorrow.
“bullet” A nice editorial about Hemp in the San Francisco Chronicle, calling for the legalization of industrial hemp in California. [thanks, Allan]
“bullet” UN Drug Czar Antonio Maria Costa continues to proclaim his stupidity (or, at the very least, his view that the entire world is stupid enough to believe his propaganda) in Reefer is Worth Getting Mad About [thanks, DdC]
“bullet” Brian Bennett has a startlingly powerful chart demonstrating clearly how we are throwing money away on the drug war.
“bullet” Radley Balko is continuing his outstanding work. In Accountability, Part One he updates us on the lack of action in investigating the death of Anthony Diotaiuto. Also see Accountability, Part Two and Accountability, Part Three.