Drug WarRant

Via The Drug Update, I see that someone’s trying to drag out the old gateway theory again. The gateway theory really only holds true in one respect — that people who buy marijuana have to do so from criminals who also sell other drugs, so they may be convinced to buy those as well (an argument against prohibition).
Yet people continue to try to promote or “prove” the biological effect, or “stepping stone” version of the gateway theory. The latest is at Nature.com under the fancy title: Adolescent Cannabis Exposure Alters Opiate Intake and Opioid Limbic Neuronal Populations in Adult Rats
Here’s what they claim to have discovered:

THC-pretreated rats showed an upward shift throughout the heroin self-administration acquisition… phase, whereas control animals maintained the same pattern once stable intake was obtained.

In other words, if you happen to be a THC-pretreated rat (and I’m sure there are some of you out there reading this), and you decide to use heroin, you may have the desire to increase your heroin use. If, however, you are not a THC-pretreated rat, but rather an ordinary rat, then your heroin use will probably be stable.
Their conclusion:

The current findings support the gateway hypothesis demonstrating that adolescence cannabis exposure has an enduring impact on hedonic processing resulting in enhanced opiate intake, possibly as a consequence of alterations in limbic opioid neuronal populations.

Actually, no. The gateway hypothesis (as it is popularly used by the media and politicians) has to do with an increased predilection for both the use and abuse of the latest horror drug-du-jour, ie., “marijuana will lead you to heroin addiction,” not “marijuana use when you’re young will, if you use heroin when you’re older, make it harder to quit” (if you’re a rat).
The use of the word gateway in the abstract of this study is a blatant attempt to get publicity for their study, likely with the full knowledge that their data will be misused.
Pretty poor science, considering they really don’t have much of a clue what it is that they’ve learned.
There’s one very clear rebuttal to the gateway theory. If marijuana use is dangerous because it leads to heroin addiction (as the popular theory goes), then all we need do is look at those who have tried marijuana (96.8 million Americans) and then see how many are currently addicted to heroin (No reliable figures exist for this, so using the same data standards (White House drug facts), we’ll simply go with reported past month use: 166,000. Of course, there’s no way of knowing how many of these are actually addicted, but we’ll use it anyway.)
This means that at least 99.83 percent of those who have tried marijuana have not gone on to become heroin addicts today.
Peculiar sort of gateway, where less than 2/10ths of one percent manage to find their way through it.
Update: Maia Szalavitz also finds it to be agenda-based science reporting.

Several people have passed on this bizarre specious drivel attempting to pass itself off as historical analysis by John C. Burnham.

The United States has won the war against illegal drugs. That was the conclusion of a unique gathering on June 17, which marked the 35th anniversary of the war’s beginning in 1971 with the appointment of Dr. Jerome H. Jaffe, a psychiatrist, as the first White House drug czar. […]

Wow! Reminds me of this old Doonesbury strip.

The main conclusion — that we won the war on drugs — was the biggest surprise, because advocates of illegal drugs have in recent years filled the media with rhetoric about “the failed war on drugs.” The czars’ straightforward conclusion may come as a shock, but, as they outlined what the war was about, what they had to say made a lot of sense. […]

Except, of course, that he fails to then follow that with a single statement that makes any sense. Go ahead and read it. Vietnam veterans, cocaine, young kids fried on marijuana, Congress and treatment. There’s not a coherent thought that supports a single argument that he makes.
And then, Burnham destroys any sense that he has an education, let alone a license to teach at Ohio State University (prospective students take note), with this revisionist tripe:

For historians like me, the collective experience of the former czars provides two lessons. The first is unwelcome to extremists of the right and left and their shady commercial allies: Prohibitory laws can work. Historians have established that the 1920s experiment in alcohol prohibition was successful and was repealed in 1933 only because of a massive, well-financed propaganda campaign.

There is one rather amusing moment in his piece where he talks about the fact that czars, ironically, had little power. However, they were sometimes able to get things done:

When new substances of abuse came along, often the czar was able to get officials and private businesses, especially pharmaceutical companies, to get one substance or another restricted before it became a major problem.

Oh, yeah. Those pharmaceutical companies are real allies in prohibition. Wonder why? (But I bet they aren’t too happy to have that particular truth presented.)
Fortunately, Maia Szalavitz was on the scene quickly with Who’s Smoking What? Drug Czars, UN Proclaim Victory in Drug War
After a casual blasting of both the UN and the Drug Czars (their arguments are hardly worthy of any real fisking), Maia concludes:

If drug warriors want to declare victory and go home, however, I’m all for it. But claim that you’ve won and maintain the same policy that spends billions and locks up millions and has virtually no effect on either drug use rates, drug-related harm or addiction rates? What have you been smoking?

Anybody know if there’s anything new on the Americans for Safe Access efforts to get Health and Human Services to respond on medical marijuana using the Data Quality Act?
As a re-cap… again… Oh, just read this.
Anyway, the last letter from HHS granting themselves a 60 day extension was on April 12. And that’s well over 60 days ago. And ASA said if they didn’t get a real response in 60 days, they’d file suit in federal court to force the issue.
So…

Paul Campos has a fascinating OpEd out that is getting some visibility…

The standard story is that Prohibition was a bad idea because it couldn’t “work.” It’s said the attempt to make America dry was doomed to failure because our legal system lacked the resources to stamp out alcohol use, at least at an acceptable price.
The problem with this story is it assumes that, if it were possible to eliminate alcohol use in America at an “acceptable” cost, then this would be a desirable thing. And that is a seriously wrongheaded belief.

We’ve talked a lot about the degree to which prohibition doesn’t work. But sometimes we are hesitant to talk about the actual positive side of alcohol and drugs.

… to make America a completely sober nation, even if it were possible, would be a terrible thing. And this point applies to many other mind-altering substances as well, to greater and lesser extents. In particular, the socially harmful effects of marijuana are almost wholly a product of the fact that its use is prosecuted as a crime, while the drug’s beneficial effects may well be comparable to those of its far more dangerous legal cousin, alcohol.
It’s not even clear that it would be desirable to completely eliminate heroin and cocaine use, assuming such a thing could be done, which of course it can’t (one of the dirty little secrets of the drug war is that many people use these drugs recreationally for years on end with little or no adverse effect).
All drugs have both good and bad effects. …

This will be a tough one for some middle-of-the-road reformers to swallow. But it’s an important point.

Link

On June 28, Rep. Jerry Weller voted to continue wasting our tax dollars on harassing sick people in other states who are following their doctors’ instructions and state law.
Eleven states have made it legal for patients with cancer, AIDS or other serious diseases to use medical marijuana under a doctor’s supervision if it works for them. And we have plenty of things on which to spend tax money that are much more important than sending federal agents to those 11 states to lock up grandma in her wheelchair.
Citizens Against Government Waste called the practice a waste of federal resources and said that it “proves that the government is incapable of exercising any kind of fiscal restraint.”
Additionally, the Presbyterian Church recently joined the United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, United Church of Christ, Union for Reform Judaism, Progressive National Baptist Convention and the Unitarian Universalist Association in actively supporting the use of medical marijuana in these situations. Not a single denomination has opposed it.
Most recent polls have shown that over 70 percent of Americans support the right of seriously ill people to use medical marijuana.
Does Jerry Weller realize that it’s our money he’s throwing away?
If he wants to go to some other state and interfere with a doctor and patient following their state law, he’s welcome to do it on his own, but he shouldn’t be spending our tax dollars.
His vote does not represent American values, moral values or even traditional “Republican” values, and does nothing for the people of Illinois.
By the way, kudos are due to Rep. Tim Johnson for voting to end this reprehensible practice. Too bad he couldn’t count on his colleagues.
Pete Guither
Bloomington

If you got a letter published, let us know.

I’m pleased to see that the American Flag will fly free this weekend, narrowly escaping Congress’ attempt to cage it and make it subservient to their political agendas.
Take a moment to remember what July 4th is about.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence did the founders say that they were doing this in order to form a powerful and unaccountable central administration. Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence did the founders say that this was necessary to prevent the cultivation and consumption of a plant. Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence did the founders say that they were doing this in order to lock up millions of nonviolent American citizens, or to give police the power of storming into and ransacking your house in the middle of the night.
Independence Day is not a celebration of military victory. It is about deciding to be free, and declaring to the world the importance of that freedom — freedom from tyranny. But it’s a decision that must be reaffirmed constantly, or tyranny will infiltrate and proliferate.
Reaffirm now.

I’m not sure I can say what really happened this week with the shooting of Kenneth Jamar in Huntsville during a drug raid, but it sure doesn’t seem like the task force has a clue either.
They’re sure that what they did was OK — they just can’t ‘splain it too well.

The vote was 163 in favor, 259 opposed.
In my opinion, those who voted against it did so, for the most part, for one of two reasons:

1. Fear of appearing soft on… anything.
2. Fear of getting reduced campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry.

I’ll tell you one thing for sure after listening to that debate. I felt proud to be on the side of Hinchey and the others debating in favor of the amendment (as, apparently, were those in the gallery). The opponents were dried up husks of stale, debunked, and irrelevant prattle.
So what do you do next?
Well, the first step is to find out how your Representative voted. That roll call will be available here (at the time of this post, the vote isn’t available yet, but keep trying). I already know how mine voted (unless he didn’t show up), because he has a record of being both corrupt and a jerk.
So I’m starting on my letter to the editor in the local paper. I’m going to talk about how he voted to continue blowing our local taxpayers’ money on having the feds harass sick people in other states who are following their doctor’s advice and state law. I’m going to mention that Citizens Against Government Waste called it a waste of federal resources and said that it “proves that the government is incapable of exercising any kind of fiscal restraint.” I’m going to mention that the Presbyterian Church recently joined the United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, United Church of Christ, Union for Reform Judaism, Progressive National Baptist Convention, and the Unitarian Universalist Association in supporting medical marijuana. I’m going to mention that most recent polls have shown that over 70% of Americans support the right of seriously ill people to use medical marijuana. And I’m going to conclude that if my Representative wants to go on his own to some other state and interfere with a doctor and patient following state law, that he’s welcome to do it on his own, but he shouldn’t be spending our tax dollars on it.
Go ahead. Start work on your own letter. If your Representative voted the right way, thank him or her for it.
If your Representative voted the wrong way, then let your displeasure be known in your local paper. If yours is a state without medical marijuana, then ask why he/she’s wasting your tax dollars to interfere in another state. If yours is a state with medical marijuana, then ask why he/she’s wasting your tax dollars to sabotage the wishes of his/her own state! (And ask if they remember what state they’re from, or do they think they’re from Washington DC?)
I’m giving you an outline that you can use — and there’s no problem with using the exact same points I am, but write your own letter (newspapers hate getting form letters). Remember to follow the letter-writing guidelines of your paper. You generally must include a daytime phone number so the paper can verify that you sent the letter. Most papers won’t accept a letter over 250 words (some even less). Microsoft Word and other programs have a word count feature that will help you. It’s a good idea to trim your letter some after you write it anyway — makes it tighter. Make your points strong and clear, but without fury. Don’t go off on tangents. Stick to the point.
MAP has writers’ resources, and if it doesn’t work for you to write a letter to the editor on the Hinchey amendment, check out their current focus alert.
But write a letter. What have you got to lose? Just turn off the TV for 15 minutes and do it. You can email it to the paper. Start by copying my paragraph above and add your own words to it. You’ll be done in no time, and you’ll feel better about it.
And you’ll be surprised by the people who will come up to you and say “I read your letter in the paper. It made a lot of sense.”

Today is likely the day for the next attempt. This is the fourth time that the HInchey amendment has been brought forward, and I have high hopes balanced with election year pessimism.
A couple of new things on our side include:

• The Citizens Against Government Waste report that expressly supports the amendment
• The Prebyterian Church vote last Thursday to support Medical Marijuana.

I’m expecting both of these to be mentioned on the floor today.
Here’s some of the material about the Presbyterian church vote:

By consensus, the denomination passed a resolution “urging Federal legislation that allows for its use and that provides for the production and distribution of the plant for those purposes.” […]
The Presbyterian Church (USA) joins the United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, United Church of Christ, Union for Reform Judaism, Progressive National Baptist Convention, and the Unitarian Universalist Association in support of medical marijuana.
“Medical marijuana is an issue of mercy,” said Rev. Lynn Bledsoe, a Presbyterian minister from Alabama who works as a hospice chaplain. “As people of faith, we are called to stand up for humans who are suffering needlessly. It is unconscionable that seriously ill patients can be arrested for making an earnest attempt at healing by using medical marijuana with their doctors’ approval.”
“Legislators who give lip service to ‘moral values’ had better be consistent on the medical marijuana issue,” said Charles Thomas, executive director of the Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative. “The Presbyterian Church (USA) joins six other major denominations explicitly supporting medical marijuana, while no denominations’ governing bodies have ever taken an official position against it.”

Note: You can follow the House proceedings in general today here or watch on C-Span.

There have been hundreds of media “reports” out there in the past day that have been mindlessly parroting the UNODC hype because it’s easy, but not all of them are buying it.
Check out the Vancouver Sun

UN drug report unintentionally argues against prohibition
The 2006 World Drug Report of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime will, no doubt, convince many people that we haven’t been diligent enough in prosecuting the war on drugs, that we have to step up our efforts to eradicate illicit drugs, particularly marijuana.
But the report actually confirms that the war on drugs has been a dismal failure, that it has failed to decrease marijuana use and it has placed users in greater danger. […]
But we can blame the rise in marijuana potency directly on the war on drugs. As the 2002 Senate report, which was ignored by both the current Conservative government and the former Liberal one, explained, growers produce the strongest pot possible because it’s easier to trade. As more draconian laws were passed and enforcement was stepped up, it became more profitable to transport smaller quantities of potent drugs than large amounts of mild ones.
The report even admits that “cannabis breeders in North America and Europe have been working to create more potent cannabis,” but it seems unaware that this is a direct result of the criminalization of the drug.
Since marijuana use and potency have both increased during the all-out war on drugs, it’s abundantly clear that the war has been a failure. Indeed, the only way to control the purity of the product — and thereby protect the health of the user — is through the regulation of the growth and sale of marijuana. But don’t expect to hear that from the UN agency any time soon, because it has been repeatedly bullied by the United States into promoting a prohibitionist ideology toward all recreational drugs.
Regardless of what the agency says, its evidence its clear: The war on marijuana has failed to decrease drug use, and has increased the dangers faced by users.