Drug WarRant

Drug policy reformers have been talking about the dangers of corrupt government over-reach and the intrusion of the federal government on individual rights and freedom for some time. And this isn’t just coming from a theoretical libertarian principles perspective. It is a practical understanding on the part of people from varied political backgrounds based on witnessing the destruction first-hand.
So pardon us for being a little bit frustrated that people are taking so long to learn the lessons.
When the Abu Ghraib prison torture scandal broke and the world was shocked, we already knew about the everyday prison torture here in the United States (disturbing video).
When the world finally realized that Guantanamo was filled in part with people held indefinitely for no particular reason, we already knew of similar cases in the war on drugs (such as Isidro Aviles, who was intimidated into accepting a 23-year sentence based on possession of $52 cash and ended up dying in prison — his mother still doesn’t know the cause).
As each new and expanded instance of government spying on American citizens in the name of the war on terror is revealed and serious people start discussing whether it should be of concern that the government is perhaps weakening the fourth amendment, our jaws drop and we wonder if the country has slept through the devastation of the 4th Amendment in the name of the war on drugs. This was done with no demonstrable benefit (and, in fact, seriously increased dangers) to American citizens. And yet we discuss the “merits” of government intrusion in the name of the war on terror as if there was no historical perspective.
We hear about innocent people killed by our soldiers in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some people are outraged; others are saddened but philosophical — after all, some collateral damage is expected in war. And yet we’ve seen the loss of innocent lives for years right here in this country, when military tactics are used domestically in the war on drugs.
And now, in the war on immigration, it is expected that President Bush, in his Monday evening speech, will call for the deployment of thousands of troops within the United States to protect the border. But you see, if this is true, we already know what will happen. We’ve been there before.

On May 20, 1997, Esequiel Hernandez, Jr. (pictured left) was herding his family’s goats 100 yards from his home on the US-Mexican border in Redford, Texas, as he did every day. Six days before, he had turned 18 years old.
Unknown to Esequiel or any of the other residents of Redford, a group of four Marines led by 22-year old Corporal Clemente Banuelos had been encamped just outside the small village along the Rio Grande River for three days. After watering his small flock of goats in the river, Esequiel started on his way back home when the Marines began stalking him from a distance of 200 yards.
The four camouflaged Marines were outfitted with state-of-the-art surveillance equipment and weapons. Esequiel carried an antique .22 caliber rifle — a pre-World War I, single shot rifle to keep wild dogs and rattlesnakes away from his goats. The autopsy showed that Esequiel was facing away from the Marines when he was shot. He probably never knew the Marines were watching him from 200 yards away.
Thus it was that a 22 year-old United States Marine shot and killed an innocent 18 year-old boy tending his family’s goats. This outrageous act was the inevitable consequence of a drug prohibition policy gone mad. Esequiel Hernandez was killed not by drugs but by military officers of the United States government.

If only people could learn from the drug war. We’ve tried to teach, but they won’t listen.

• They snicker uncomfortably because we said the word “drugs” or “marijuana.”
• They dismiss us and our information because they assume we are part of the “long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking crowd.”
• They ignore the whole issue because it’s only about criminals, right? And why should we care about them?
• They shuffle back and forth uncomfortably and say “I agree with you, but we really can’t afford to make the drug war a political issue right now.”

But the really scary people are the ones who say: “We haven’t won the war on drugs/terror/immigration/_____ (fill in the blank) because we’ve made the government obey the law. We need to give them more tools to fight these wars, even at the expense of individual rights. After all, 911/meth/crack/super-pot has changed everything.”
These are the ones who are willing to give up their prize possession — a free country with a government of, by and for the people — for a handful of “magic” beans.

Here’s the opening of an article by Andrea Bushee in the Telegraph (NH)

POT, SEX, BOOZE — IT COULD BE YOUR KID
AMHERST — One in three Souhegan High School students say they have smoked marijuana or had sex, and two in three say they have used alcohol.

Let me repeat:

One in three Souhegan High School students say they have smoked marijuana or had sex…

What does that mean? (especialy since clarified numbers are reported nowhere in the article) Well, let’s see — it could mean that 1/3 of students have had sex and none of them have smoked pot… And are the two mutually exclusive? The article doesn’t say.
I can understand a report saying a certain percentage of people drink either diet coke or diet pepsi without clarification — it might give you an idea of how many people like diet cola.
But marijuana and sex?

When I posted this story about University of Colorado police posting photos of students smoking pot and offering a reward for identification, the general consensus of the regulars here was that the tactic would cause them problems. It appears we were right.
Link

Civil rights attorneys Perry R. Sanders, Jr. and Robert J. Frank announced plans on May 10 to file a federal lawsuit against CU on behalf of several students who say their rights were violated by the CUPD at the 4/20 pro-marijuana gathering on Farrand Field.
“We were not advocating a federal civil lawsuit, we were advocating peace,” Sander said in a press release. “The university has forced our hand in this matter.” […]
In the announcement, Sanders said the Web site is one example of how the university has gone too far. “These are people that the worst thing they did was trespass, and there is a $50 reward by their picture,” he said. “This isn’t okay. This is killing ants with a sledge hammer.”
The university has “come after people like these three ladies right here who were not doing anything illegal that day,” he said. “They didn’t see any no-trespassing signs that I’m aware of. They certainly weren’t using any illegal drugs out there that day, they were like many hundreds, if not thousands, of people who were out there expressing themselves freely on a free university campus.”
“The photographs of the women, which are now posted on the Internet for the entire world to see, are a violation of these students rights,” Sanders said. “They’ve gotten calls from ( people ) as far away as Europe that they’ve seen ( the ) picture on the Web regarding being associated with using illegal drugs,” he said. “These people were not using illegal drugs at all. They were merely part of a peaceful protest.” […]
The attorneys contacted university representatives to ask that the CUPD’s investigation be stopped and the conflict resolved peaceably. “We offered the university an olive branch,” Sanders said in a prepared statement. “We, on behalf of clearly innocent students, asked them to take down the Web site and purge information related to it. We advised that the university would continue to harm these individuals if they acted on any of this information. The university not only rejected the olive branch, but picked up their bully club during finals and began telling students to come into the police station for questioning.”

While university officials and others claim that they did nothing wrong — after all, the participants were violating the no-trespassing signs, and the police have the right to go after those who break the law — there is a larger issue involved here.
The field was a traditional place for an annual 420 protest. Police and university officials knew this. As a public university, they purposely closed the field to prevent or hamper a peaceful political protest. They then posted pictures of the protesters online and offered rewards. Since they didn’t actually follow procedures for drug arrest (evidence, etc.), any actual pot smoking that may have occurred is irrelevant. All that they had is pictures showing that the participants were part of a political protest at a site traditionally used for protest, but that had been arbitrarily closed in order to hamper protest. Hardly justification for putting a price on their heads.
I don’t know if the lawsuit has a chance, but regardless, the publicity isn’t good for the university, and they seem to know it.
Link

University of Colorado officials aren’t sure that a tactic used April 20 to discourage an annual pot-smoking celebration on Farrand Field worked well enough for an encore next year. […]
University officials closed the field for the day to discourage the event, but the signs were ignored. Last year, the sprinklers were turned on at the field to douse the participants.
Hartman said he doesn’t know what the university will do about the gathering next year but said administrators feel that many people would like the university to discourage illegal behaviors on campus.
“We’re going to do as you guys to tell us what to do,” Hartman said. “We’ve run out of ideas.”

Via Money Up Front, comes Pot plant photos lead to arrest

A Statesboro man was so proud of his crop, he photographed it and went to a local drug store to have the pictures developed.
Unfortunately, his bumper crop was marijuana, and police arrested him Tuesday as he went to pick the photos up.
Statesboro Police Capt. L. C. Williams said Byron Charles Mattheeussen, 21, Acorn Lane, photographed his healthy marijuana plants – 42 in all – and took the pictures to Eckerd to be developed. When the photo lab technician saw what the subject of the photos was, she called police.

… if you’re trying to convince teens to smoke pot.
Via NORML (and thanks to everyone who let me know about it).

San Marcos, TX: Teenagers exposed to anti-marijuana public service announcements (PSAs) produced by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) are more likely to hold positive attitudes about the drug and are more likely to express their intent to use cannabis after viewing the advertisements, according to a study published in the May issue of the journal Addictive Behaviors.
Two hundred and twenty-six volunteers age 18- to 19-years old took part in the study. Participants viewed either a series of anti-marijuana PSAs accessed from the ONDCP website or a series of anti-tobacco advertisements. Investigators then surveyed viewers’ attitudes toward the two substances by using a five-point scale (e.g., good-bad) and computerized implicit association tests (IATs). Researchers also measured respondents’ intent to use either marijuana or tobacco via a 10-point scale (e.g., agree-disagree).
Investigators found that viewers expressed significantly fewer negative attitudes toward marijuana after viewing the ads. No such “boomerang effect” was noted among those who viewed anti-tobacco advertising.

Gee, do you think the drug czar will mention this study when he asks for more money next year?

Stupid laws.
Langley City, BC

Sell a glass crack pipe or bong in Langley City and you’ll have to tell police who you sold it to, including the person’s name and address. […]
If the bylaw receives final reading, the retail sellers of hash pipes and bongs will be required to ask ID of all their purchasers. The owner then has to record and report all information of the buyers. The information given to police can be hand-delivered to the detachment or sent via fax or e-mail the day of the sale.

At least they don’t have a five-day waiting period.
Hmmm… I wonder what the police will do with that information?

Brian Doherty (of Reason Magazine) explains in today’s LA Times how little effect the changed drug law in Mexico would have had, and notes the U.S. Government’s disproportionate response, concluding with:

Americans angry about Mexican immigration complain that the country is exporting its troubles to us. In fact, with our drug-war bullying, we’re exporting our enforcement troubles back to Mexico, adding to the problems that make so many people want to come here to begin with.
The White House’s disproportionate panic can’t be explained by any actual damage the law could have caused. Maybe U.S. drug warriors realized that if we saw firsthand, right across the border, just how unnecessary are the laws against drug possession, the futility of making 1.7 million drug arrests each year would be exposed, and that’s never a happy thought for any bureaucrat. In Amsterdam, where pot, hash and mushrooms can be sold freely in certain shops, surveyed use of most drugs is lower than in the United States, illustrating that legalization does not equal everyone getting high. The social order still stands.
Experienced drug users have an ethic: You don’t force other people on your trip against their will. Pity that U.S. drug policymakers can’t be that sensible.

The U.S. Government has worked very hard to export its drug war around the world. Not only to protect the drug war itself, but to use it as a tool to control or influence other countries. This fact made DEA head Karen Tandy’s opening remarks at the DEA conference in Montreal earlier this week seem especially chilling to me.

We have come a long way in 24 years. It is staggering to think that back then, we all fit around a single conference table. And look at us now. [..]
We have amassed the largest IDEC contingent ever with 76 countries. Stretching from the southern tip of Africa to northern Europe to the Far East, 7 new countries became members this year, (Afghanistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Poland, South Africa and United Kingdom) and 6 are joining us for the first time ever (Denmark, Ghana, Kyrgyzstan, Sweden, UAE and Vietnam).

Although there are countries (particularly in Europe) willing to begin to stand up to U.S. drug-war bullying, it’s a tough thing to do, particularly when you face both the unfair label of being soft on drugs, and pressure from the world’s superpower.

I was browsing through the DAWN report, and I came across the somewhat startling notation that marijuana was the 2nd most implicated illicit drug in drug-related suicide attempts.
Wow, I thought — who are all these people who are trying to commit suicide by marijuana? It’s a pretty tough challenge since nobody has ever died from an overdose of marijuana. It would be like committing suicide by drinking water. Oh, wait, you actually can overdose from water (you’d have to drink almost a gallon all at once), while you can’t fatally overdose from marijuana.
But of course nobody is actually attempting suicide by bong. The way DAWN works is that if you swallow a bottle of sleeping pills and smoke a joint, that’s a marijuana-related suicide attempt. Or if you smoked a joint yesterday and today you jump off a bridge, that’s a marijuana-related suicide attempt.
It’s really hard to understand how DAWN has any meaning at all. Let’s go to the DAWN report:

Suicide Attempts
DAWN estimates 121,585 (CI: 108,955 to 134,215) ED visits for drug-related suicide attempts in 2004 (Table 15).
It is important to remember that DAWN includes only those suicide attempts that involve drugs, but these attempts are not limited to overdoses. Also included are persons who attempt suicide by other means (e.g., by gun) when drugs are involved. Excluded are suicide attempts not involving drugs (e.g., by gun alone) and those documented as something other than an attempt (e.g., suicide ideation, gesture, thought, and so forth).
Nearly two-thirds of ED visits for drug-related suicide attempts involved multiple drugs (64%) (Table 16). Alcohol was the most frequently implicated drug and was involved in nearly a third (31%) of the ED visits for drug-related suicide attempts. Since DAWN excludes visits for adults when alcohol is the only drug, the role of alcohol in suicide
attempts is probably larger. The most frequent illicit drugs were cocaine (11% of visits) and marijuana (8% of visits), but the margins of error for the illicit drugs are quite large and the numbers are relatively small when compared with the pharmaceuticals.

There’s no indication as to whether they count you if your head explodes from reading the DAWN report.

It’s that time again — it’s DAWN — the Drug Abuse Warning Network. Their latest report is out, and as the results are manipulated and analyzed, you’ll start to hear dire reports in the media about how some drug or another is particularly of concern in connection to emergency room visits.
The full 80 page pdf report is available here (Thanks to The Drug Update for the link).
You need to go to page 61 of the report to really understand how this works.

Under the current methodological design, medical charts for all ED visits within the selected hospitals are reviewed retrospectively to find the drug-related cases for submission to DAWN. DAWN includes ED visits associated with substance abuse and drug misuse, both intentional and accidental. DAWN also includes ED visits related to the use of drugs for legitimate therapeutic purposes. To be a DAWN case, a drug needs only to be implicated in the visit; the drug does not need to have caused the visit. Only recent drug use is included; the reason a patient used the drug is irrelevant, and the case criteria are broad enough to encompass all types of drug-related events, which include, but are not limited to, explicit drug abuse. This approach, which finds ED visits related to drug abuse only indirectly, recognizes that medical records (the source of DAWN data) frequently lack explicit documentation of substance abuse, and distinctions between use, misuse, and abuse of drugs are often subjective.
DAWN uses the data from the visits classified as DAWN cases in the selected hospitals to calculate various estimates of drug-related visits for the Nation as a whole, as well as for specific metropolitan areas. To calculate these estimates and measure their precision, the DAWN survey requires the application of sampling and weighting
methodologies. [emphasis added]

It then goes on for seven pages to describe how the results are tweaked in the attempt to provide representative data based on the hospitals that were selected.
Now it’s possible that there is useful information that can somehow be gained from such an analysis.
However, unlike the conclusions sometimes drawn in news reports, what DAWN does NOT demonstrate is any connection between the use of a drug and the likelihood that it will send you to the emergency room.

Syndicated columnist Froma Harrop has a nice OpEd out today:

America’s war on drugs is actually a Raid on Taxpayers. The war costs an estimated $70 billion a year to prosecute, and the drugs keep pouring in. But while the War on Drugs may have failed its official mission, it is a great success as a job-creation program. Thousands of drug agents, police, detectives, prosecutors, judges, anti-drug activists, prison guards and their support staffs can thank the program for their daily bread and health benefits.
The American people are clearly not ready to decriminalize cocaine, heroine or other hard drugs, but they’re well on their way to easing up on marijuana. A Zogby poll found that nearly half of Americans now want pot legal and regulated, like alcohol. Few buy into the “demon drug” propaganda anymore, and for a simple reason: Several countries have decriminalized marijuana with little effect on public health.
Americans could save a ton of money doing the same. …