Drug WarRant

Marcela Sanchez has an interesting article in today’s Washington Post: Bolivia’s Morales Wants to Expand Coca Use
The article covers most of the salient points about the issue that have been covered here and elsewhere, but glaringly absent is any understanding on the part of Ms. Sanchez of two critical points regarding cocaine trade:

1. Cocaine eradication and interdiction does not work.
2. Demand for cocaine is relatively inelastic.

If you understand these two simple facts (and these are not just opinions, they are demonstrable and provable), then parts of her article make no sense. Such as:

One might say that by arguing that more cultivation is needed, Morales is already recognizing defeat in efforts to stem the supply of coca leaves for the illegal market. Also, it seems naive to think that encouraging coca growers to produce crops for products yet to be marketed would be any more successful than crop substitution has been for overall reduction of illicit coca use. Meanwhile, drug traffickers, with their highly sophisticated means for developing and delivering their product worldwide, would be the first to profit from increased production.

The flawed assumption here is that the production of legal coca will somehow bail out the traffickers who have not been able to produce enough cocaine on their own or allow them to vastly increase their market. But the economics of the drug trade do not support this assumption.
Additionally, it is ridiculous to assume that marketing of new products must occur before their production (ignoring the fact that Morales has been working on international allowances, discussion of new products and working to give farmers some hope simultaneously). And dismissing the effort as one as likely to fail as other crop substitutions shows ignorance of the culture.
Morales is attempting to develop a unique market for a product that his people are particularly well-suited to supply. That deserves both support and kudos. If he is allowed by the international community to do this, it will improve the health of the legal economy in Bolivia, while reducing the fiscal power of the drug traffickers as an overall percentage of the country’s “actual” GDP.
Marcela needs to go back to school.

Via Media Matters
May 17:

O’REILLY: You know, this immigration thing is very interesting because it — it points out a lot of things, bigger issues that y’all should be aware of. You know, Mexico doesn’t care about us. Mexico doesn’t care about the United States. And, you know, it — it — we have to be friends with them. I mean, we just can’t be enemies with them. But we’re dealing with a country that is — you know — is so corrupt and so out of control that we — you know — we have to deal with them on a certain level. But we certainly can’t let their corruption infect us, and it has, particularly with the drug trafficking.
You know, when you have the volume of narcotics, millions of tons of narcotics coming across the southern border — if I’m the president of the United States — that alone makes me put the [U.S. National] Guard on the border and not 6,000 guards. I would have 30, 40 thousand down there, because the damage that narcotics do to the fabric of society — my makeup artist for the TV side — I don’t need makeup for radio, but some people say —
LIS WIEHL: Yeah, it would help.
O’REILLY: Yeah, thank you — was mugged the other day; punched in the face in Greenwich Village. Now, who does that? Drug addicts desperate for money. So, this poor woman is walking down the street trying to support her little son, some guy walks up to her, punches her in the face and takes her purse. Now, nine out of 10 of these guys are drug addicts.
So, she is a victim of the Mexican drug corruption. And — and — and all you have to do is multiply that by 10 million and you see how all of this corruption in Mexico has infected our society. Yet, you have these pinheads in Congress — see, they’re not gonna get mugged. President Bush isn’t’ gonna get mugged. All right.

It’s a wonder that his brain doesn’t just leak out his ears. It doesn’t seem to be attached to anything.

Today in the mail, I received an envelope from the Drug Enforcement Administration. What a delight! I so seldom hear from them.
It was my ticket to “A Vigil for Lost Promise” on June 8. (Sent by official DEA taxpayer mail, of course. Would they do the same for this Vigil for Lost Promise?)
The event will be at the DEA headquarters (600-700 Army Navy Drive) between the two DEA buildings. Several security checkpoints will make sure that only those with tickets get in and that their names are cross-checked with the list. Bags and purses will be searched. No signs or placards will be allowed.
Here’s the part that got me:

The following items are prohibited: glass bottles, knives, firearms, illegal drugs.

Illegal drugs are prohibited at a DEA event? What a surprise!
I’m not sure what it says about the DEA or their view of the intended audience receiving this letter… So people are coming to an event that is taking place at DEA headquarters where they know they will be searched and that the DEA has their name and address. And they’re going to think “Gee, I think I’ll bring some illegal drugs to take the edge off this bummer of a vigil”? How bizarre.

Steve Chapman in the Chicago Tribune

States and nations don’t seem to lose anything when they stop treating drug use as a crime. But there are gains to be had: more police time to combat violent criminals, less need to build prisons, and fewer young lives scarred by arrest and imprisonment for behavior that does no harm.

The war on drugs is an attack on rationality.[…]
Isn’t it a sign of mental disorder when distorted reasoning is unchanged by empirical evidence? What is it about marijuana that drives our politicians insane?

– Salim Muwakkil of In These Times with another reaction to the FDA statement.

Over at DARE Generation, you can watch DEA head Karen Tandy tell people that legalizing alcohol was a failure.
Her criteria for that judgement (and for her opposition in the same piece for drug legalization)? That use increased. Not abuse. Use. And of course, nothing about all the violence and corruption (and the myriad other problems) associated with prohibition.
I tire of these political appointees who conduct their job solely by lies and insulting the intelligence of the people. It is our country, not theirs. They are our employees and it’s time to show them the door.

Via The Drug Update:

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International (NYSE:VRX) today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has given marketing approval for Cesamet (CII) (nabilone) oral capsules. Cesamet is used to treat nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy in patients who have failed to respond adequately to conventional anti-emetic treatments.
“There is still a significant unmet need in treating one of the most feared and severe consequences of life-saving cancer therapies,”said Timothy C. Tyson, Valeant’s president and chief executive officer. “With the approval of Cesamet, Valeant is proud to offer a solution that will help alleviate one of the most common side effects of chemotherapy.” […]
The American Cancer Society estimates that there will be nearly 1.4 million new cancer cases in 2006. Approximately 70 to 80 percent of all patients receiving chemotherapy experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Although the use of anti-emetic agents decreases the incidence and severity of CINV, symptoms continue to occur in 40 to 60 percent of patients.
“There is a need for cannabinoids, such as Cesamet, for patients who have exhausted conventional treatments but are still coping with the debilitating side effects of chemotherapy,” said Neal Slatkin, M.D., DABPM and director, Department of Supportive Care, Pain and Palliative Medicine at City of Hope.[..]
Cesamet should be used with caution in patients with a history of substance abuse, including alcohol abuse or dependence and marijuana use, since Cesamet is similar to the active ingredient found innaturally occurring marijuana.

Excuse me while I go bang my head against a wall.

I haven’t been reminding people enough about Loretta’s campaign for Governor in Alabama, but she continues to be on a roll and gathering attention.
The latest — this snickering report on MSNBC, which actually did manage to bring up the issue of marijuana legalization and Loretta’s campaign without completely dismissing it, by noting that degree of attention her campaign is receiving.
Keep at it, Loretta!

Link

Well, it turns out that Americans for Safe Access has decided that the number of delays by Health and Human Services (see below) qualifies as illegal avoidance of the Data Quality Act. They have sent a letter to HHS:

Dear Mr. Jarman:
I write to request an immediate response to our appeal of your denial of our Request for
Correction of Information under the Data Quality Act, 44 U.S.C. Û 3516, Statutory and Historical Notes, P.L. 106-554 (“The Act”). Although that appeal was received by the Office of Public Health and Science (“OPHS”) on May 20, 2005, your office has repeatedly delayed in issuing a definitive response, claiming a need for “additional time to coordinate Agency review.” See Letter from John S. Jarmin to Joseph D. Elford, dated April 12, 2006. Just eight days after the latest such letter, however, on April 20, 2006, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) publicly announced the results of this coordinated agency review in an Inter-Agency Advisory Regarding Claims That Smoked Marijuana Is a Medicine. See Exhibit A. Now that these agencies — the FDA, Drug Enforcement Administration and Office of National Drug Control Policy — have already publicly announced that they “do not support the use of smoked marijuana for medical purposes,” id., there is no reason your office needs additional time to respond to our pending appeal for the reason you stated on April 12th.
As I explained previously, time is of the essence in a public health issue such as this one.
The Data Quality Act is an amendment to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, which requires administrative agencies to (1) develop guidelines to ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” they disseminate to the public and (2) “[e]stablish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with the guidelines.” 44 U.S.C. Û 3516, Statutory and Historical Notes. Because the Act is intended to “ensur[e] the timely flow of vital information from agencies to medical providers, patients, health agencies, and the public,” the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Guidelines require the agency to respond to such requests within 60 calendar days. See HHS Guideline D.2.c.2.
Pursuant to this law, on October 4, 2004, Americans for Safe Access (“ASA”) filed a
Request for Correction of information disseminated by HHS regarding the Marijuana
Rescheduling Petition filed by Dr. Jon Gettman in 1995. More than eighteen months have
elapsed since ASA filed this request and nearly a year has elapsed since ASA appealed the initial denial of this request. Coordinated agency review which caused this delay was unnecessary, see Letter from Joseph D. Elford to Dr. Steven Galston, dated December 20, 2004, but, now that it has been completed, this cannot possibly serve to justify an even greater delay. I hope and expect that HHS will issue a final determination of our appeal in the 60 days you anticipate. If not, ASA will file suit in federal district court to compel this.
Sincerely,
Joseph D. Elford
Chief Counsel
Americans for Safe Access

So HHS is under the gun now. What will they do? Remember that HHS is one of the four entities (along with Congress, the Executive, and the DEA) that has the power to re-schedule marijuana.
Here is what ASA is demanding:

* HHS states that: “there have been no studies that have scientifically assessed the efficacy of marijuana for any medical condition.” ASA requests that HHS replace this statement with the following statement: “Adequate and well-recognized studies show the efficacy of marijuana in the treatment of nausea, loss of appetite, pain and spasticity.”
* HHS states that: “a material conflict of opinion among experts precludes a finding that marijuana has been accepted by qualified experts” and “it is clear that there is not a consensus of medical opinion concerning medical applications of marijuana.” ASA requests that HHS replace this statement with the following statement: “There is substantial consensus among experts in the relevant disciplines that marijuana is effective in treating nausea, loss of appetite, pain and spasticity. It is accepted as medicine by qualified experts.”
* HHS states that: “a complete scientific analysis of all the chemical components found in marijuana has not been conducted.” ASA requests that HHS replace this statement with the following statement: “The chemistry of marijuana is known and reproducible.”
* HHS states that marijuana: “has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” Based on the corrections above, ASA requests that HHS replace this statement with the following statement: “Marijuana has a currently accepted use in treatment in the United States.”

Go to comments and tell us how you think HHS will respond. Will they actually respond this time? If so, what will the response be?