Drug WarRant

“bullet” Radley’s got the story and partial video of a bizarre 70-90 officer SWAT drug raid conducted on the Rack n’ Roll Billiards Club under the guise of an Alcohol Beverage Control inspection (therefore warrantless). Three were arrested for drug charges: one, and undercover cop, was released; the other two were apparently police informants.
“bullet” This one will hurt. Radley’s been investigating the tendency of law enforcement in some areas to shoot the dogs at the slightest provocation. In the course of it, he found this incident of the Smoak family’s dog Patton from 2003. The video is disturbing.

Now and then I find something out there that is just so stupid that it really doesn’t even deserve comment… Yet how can I resist?
I don’t know anything about The New Media Journal.us. For all I know, they only have 10 readers (although they do have their own hate mail editor). And Bruce Hanson apparently is (or was) a marine engine salesman in Montana. But that doesn’t stop him from thinking he has the “drug industry lobby” figured out.
The inanity of his latest: Lobbying For Illicit Drugs and Terrorism, can be seen clearly in his closing paragraph:

Is it possible that much of the political rhetoric about eavesdropping, the President breaking the law, civil rights being violated, and demands made to limit the executive branch powers, are just drug users whining and the illicit drug industry speaking out, via their lobby? Is it possible that most of the irrational noise that we have recently witnessed is a lobbying effort to persuade the public to see things their way — the drug users way?

He loves to talk about the “drug industry lobby.” (Also check out Senate Democrats Filibuster Patriot Act on Behalf of Drug Users and Who Really Wants the Logging to Stop?)
But back to the current piece. He starts out by deciding that the only reason people would oppose President Bush’s oversight-free warrantless surveillance program is that they are drug users and are afraid that the government will overhear them talking about drugs over the phone. Of course, he ignores the fact the the issue is about oversight, not surveillance.
But even then, could it perhaps be that some people object because they believe in the constitution or separation of powers, and not just because they use drugs and for some reason talk about it all the time on the telephone to suspected overseas terrorists?
Not according to Bruce, who believes that if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn’t mind the administration listening in on your phone calls. So I have a test for Bruce: It’s been known that some drug smugglers hide drugs in… unusual places. Just to be on the safe side then, Bruce shouldn’t mind an anal probe to make sure he isn’t smuggling drugs in his rectum. After all, if he doesn’t have anything to hide…
The real issue, though, with Bruce Hanson (and other like him) is the ignorance of how the black market works in comparison to legitimate markets. Note this statement:

Most Americans share a common failure to understand the magnitude of the illicit drug trade in America. Therefore they are unable to understand the political influence of the industry. This influence, which is driven by the resentment of the drug culture towards the government’s prohibition of recreational drugs, continues to grow and shows up as irrational behavior. Until Americans are able to see a cause and effect relationship of this cultural manifestation, they will remain clueless as to the mechanics of the influence.

Note how he assumes that the political interests of the “drug industry” (meaning, I suppose, traffickers and producers) are the same as the “drug culture” (users and… groupies?). And that’s just not true.
Drug users may very well resent the government’s prohibition of recreational drugs. It means that they face potential arrest, that they can’t depend on quality or safety, and that they must deal with criminals to get their drugs.
The drug industry, on the other hand, absolutely depends on the government’s prohibition of recreational drugs. Without prohibition, who would buy from them? Active prohibition reduces competition, increasing profits. The more ruthless and powerful the trafficker, the more they support increased prohibition penalties. They certainly don’t plan on getting caught (and if their own street soldiers get nabbed, they just replace them — part of the cost of doing business.)
Nobody knows whether the drug industry actually funds politicians or political issues (they probably find their money works better to buy police and soldiers), but if they did, they’d contribute to politicians like Mark Souder, Dennis Hastert, and the other drug warriors who make the illicit drug business so darn profitable.
To complete his stupidity, Bruce Hanson tries this comparison:

When the recreational drug industry is compared to their direct competitor, the brewery industry, some reasonable observations and predictions can be made. For instance, it’s reasonable to believe that one industry would mimic the other in terms of their lobbying efforts.

That’s right — he finds it reasonable that a legal industry and a black-market industry would have the same governmental interests!
Black market traffickers and prohibitionists share the same bed, regardless of what Bruce Hanson desires to be true.

Thanks to all the regulars for keeping this place tidy while I was gone. Had a wonderful time in Horseshoe Bend, Arkansas, and some great quality time with my Dad.
“bullet” I haven’t been mentioning it much here, but I hope you’ve been keeping up with Radley Balko’s The Agitator, which has been making a difference, both in his attention to Cory Maye and paramilitary police raids. Absolutely first rate stuff.

I’m off to Arkansas for a few days with my Dad, and I don’t expect a lot of Wi-Fi access where we’re going.
Make yourself at home and discuss current events here, or at the messageboard. Clean up after yourselves.

Link

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS — The medical marijuana bill, S.B. 2568, passed the Senate Health and Human Services Committee today by a 6-5 vote as a new poll showed greater than two-to-one support for the measure. Passage would make Illinois the 12th state to protect patients from arrest for use of medical marijuana with their doctors’ recommendations.
“This is a major step forward,” said Christopher Fichtner, M.D., former director of mental health for the Illinois Department of Human Services. “The evidence that marijuana is a safe, effective medicine for some very ill patients has been repeatedly verified by government commissions in the U.S., Canada, Britain and elsewhere. This is a sensible, well-crafted bill that deserves quick passage.”
Fichtner, a medical consultant to IDEAL Reform, testified at the hearing along with multiple sclerosis patient Julie Falco of Chicago.

Still a close vote, but it’s an important step forward. And it’s great to hear that Julie testified again. I got to meet her last year and she’s one incredible lady.

The new statewide poll of likely general election voters, conducted by Anzalone-Liszt Research, Inc., found 62 percent support for legislation “that would allow people with cancer, multiple sclerosis, AIDS and other serious illnesses to use and grow their own marijuana for medical purposes, as long as their physician approves.” Only 28 percent were opposed, with 10 percent undecided. The poll, conducted by telephone Feb. 10-13, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.3 percent. Full results of the poll are available at http://www.mpp.org/2006_il_poll.html.

My thoughts are with the Illinois Senate committee hearing on medical marijuana. I attended the hearings last year, when Walters swooped down to put the lowly state Senators in their place, causing them to vote against their own people. I’m hoping for better results this time, but if not… It won’t go away. And eventually we will win. Unfortunately, in the meantime, people will needlessly suffer.

This reminds me that I’ve neglected to discuss the situation in New Mexico. After the Senate overwhelmingly passed the medical marijuana bill with a strong rebuke to the Drug Czar’s office for meddling with state affairs, pressure was put on the New Mexico House, which sent the bill to the Agriculture and Water Resources Committee to die. Which it did.

Drug War cheerleader Steven Steiner (founder of DAMADD) went all the way from New York to New Mexico to campaign against the notion of sick people getting medicine. This is the guy whose son died from crushing and snorting Oxycontin, and I have a tendency to say “Hey, you do what you need to do to deal with that tragedy,” but I also can’t help noticing that his actions are somewhat akin to me losing a child to cancer and then flying to Alaska to campaign for mandatory helmets for adults riding a bike.

Of course Steiner has crafted a justification:

“There’s no doubt in my mind that marijuana is a gateway drug.”

Which is all that’s important to Steiner. What’s in his mind. Not things like, uh, science, or evidence, since all studies have debunked the gateway theory. And it’s kind of hard to explain the gateway theory to the, oh, 96 million people or so who have used marijuana and didn’t go on to use other illegal drugs. And when sick people don’t have access to medicine, then they can just console themselves with the notion that at least Steiner’s mind is comforted.

Of course, there’s also one other little thing that’s important to Steiner. His bankbook.

According to DAMADD’s Web site, Perdue Pharma, the manufacturer of OxyContin, is a sponsor of the organization.

Several other large pharmaceutical companies, including Jannsen, Bristol-Meyers, Roche, Alpharma, UCB, Endo, Cephalon, Teva and Boehringer Ingelheim, also support DAMADD. “Big (pharmaceuticals), they see what’s happening,” Steiner said. “They gave us funding unrestricted.”

…the industry — which contributed more than $97,000 to New Mexico political campaigns in 2002 and more than $56,000 in 2004 — stands to lose money if marijuana became a free and legal treatment.

Yeah, we get the sordid, sick picture.

Dare Generation Diary and D’Alliance Blog have been covering this, and Steiner showed up to gloat:

I call it how I see it and the DPA is nothing more than a left wing organization trying to legalize drugs in our country and unfortunately using anyone than can including sick and dying people to further their agenda against the drug war and marijuana prohibition.

Ah, now we see the true colors. Notice the use of the words “left-wing”? As I’ve noted many times here, drug policy reform is not a left or right issue. Some of the strongest support for reform is from conservatives, who don’t believe in higher taxes to pay for the enormous costs of prohibition, and who don’t favor big government, and who believe in personal responsibility. Yet Steiner is trying to turn it into a partisan debate, just like Souder’s objection to the CPAC sessions.

Additionally, Steiner uses the most intellectually dishonest argument when he says that reformers “use” sick people to further an agenda. Let’s compare how he and I use sick people.

• Me: In order to further my agenda, I want to make it possible for sick people, with a doctor’s recommendation, and under guidelines set forth by the state, to use marijuana (a substance that has never killed anyone and is very mild in its dependence potential) if they feel it would help them. I would not require anyone to use it.
• Steiner: In order to further my agenda, I want to prohibit sick people from using marijuana, regardless of their condition, regardless of what their doctor says, (and I personally don’t think it’s a medicine regardless of what science says), even if it causes them pain, suffering, or death. And if they do use it, I want them thrown in jail at taxpayer expense, where they will then get more expensive drugs paid for by the taxpayers.

Yes, we’re both using sick people. Why don’t we ask the sick people whether they’d rather be used by me or by Steiner.

(Via Susie Bright)
Check out this old Black and White educational video clip of British troops being administered LSD for experiments.
Hilarious.
Now if you could just get both sides to take it, maybe they’d stop fighting.

I hope you have better things to do on Valentine’s Day. But if you want to, and you can stomach it, let me know how Frontline does with this.
Interestingly, Frontline publicist Jessica Smith contacted me and thought I might be interested. Based on the description, though, it sounds like the usual sensationalist drug war epidemic attempt to raise ratings.

Speed. Meth. Glass. On the street, methamphetamine has many names. What started as a fad among West Coast motorcycle gangs in the 1970s has spread across the United States, and despite lawmakers’ calls for action, the drug is now more potent, and more destructive, than at any time in the past decade. In The Meth Epidemic, airing Tuesday, February 14, 2006, at 9 P.M. ET on PBS (check local listings), FRONTLINE, in association with The Oregonian, investigates the meth rampage in America: the appalling impact on individuals, families and communities, and the difficulty of controlling an essential ingredient in meth — ephedrine and pseudoephedrine — sold legally in over-the-counter cold remedies.

Tellingly, the release indicates that the special will explore two potential solutions to the meth “crisis.” 1. controlling the retail sale of the ingredients, and 2. regulating the source of the ingredients. No discussion indicated regarding non-drug-war solutions or indication that the drug war caused the “crisis.”
Apparently Souder is interviewed. No indication as to whether anyone outside the drug war industry is involved.
Update: I didn’t watch it, but the web site is now live, complete with all the standard sensationalism and some of the shoddiest reporting I’ve seen. Pages of stuff, and only one slight mention that there might be another view…

There are some observers who say the meth problem is blown out of proportion because the number of meth-related drug treatment admissions, seizures, and fatalities are relatively few when compared to those for heroin or cocaine. However, meth’s impact on families and communities is much more devastating.

That’s it.
And the interview with Souder? Practically kissing his ass. Check out this exchange as the interviewer brings up the issue of cold medicine with alternate ingredients:

[Interviewer]One thing that’s happening is now that companies are losing shelf spaces because their products with pseudoephedrine must be placed behind the counter. They are bringing out products with phenylephrine, [which, unlike pseudoephedrine, cannot be turned into crystal meth]. But phenylephrine has been around for about 50 years. Why do you think it took so long?

[Souder]As I understand it, the alternative products are not as effective in treating pain or symptoms as the products that had the pseudoephedrine in them, and it isn’t clear whether something can come to market that will replace that. But the plain truth of the matter is that in order to tackle the meth problem, at least in the short term, we are probably going to have some reduction in some quality of impact of some products. The question is, are we better off as a nation to have a little bit less effective headache medicine or cold medicine in order to get rid of meth?

But why has it taken so long to introduce these products?

I believe in America we’ve reached a tipping point. If it [were] just in rural Nebraska, it would be a fair political debate to say, “Should we restrict a grocery store in New York City from having the most effective headache product in their choices from 120 choices to 20?” But if the problem moves beyond just Nebraska — and it’s now in 40 states, quickly heading to 50 states, and it’s devastating costs to law enforcement, to treatment, to environmental impact — so you say, “OK, the marginal change here in headache medicine is worth it.”

Some say the pharmaceutical industry has had to be dragged kicking and screaming here.

So we’re talking about reducing the quality of medicine for everyone because of panic over this so-called epidemic, which is, of course, just fine for Souder, and the Frontline interviewer is practically screaming “Why didn’t we sabotage our medicine earlier?”
Shameful for PBS.

Link

Possession of less than an ounce of marijuana would no longer be a criminal offense under a bill that won the backing of a legislative committee yesterday. The bill, approved by the Mental Health and Substance Abuse Committee on a 6-1 vote, would make possession of a small amount of marijuana a civil offense punishable by a $250 fine.

In cases involving those 18 years old or younger, parents would be notified. Possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is now considered a criminal offense, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $500 fine for the first offense.

An excellent step.

Via JMBzine, who writes Oh, great, another stupid Oklahoma drug law.
Link

Oklahoma teenagers too young to buy alcohol are getting high by drinking bottles of cough syrup containing a non-regulated ingredient, according to supporters of a bill approved by a state House panel Monday that would put the medicine behind pharmacists’ counters. […]

“This is going to become an epidemic, just like meth did,” said Rep. Doug Miller, R-Norman.

Back many years ago when I was a child, I remember two students in school who were using Kerosene to get high and one of them died (quite frankly, while my young mind had not yet heard of the not-yet-invented Darwin Awards, I instinctively understood the concept and approved in this particular case). Glue sniffing was also around. And, of course that happens today, as well. Which means…
Oh, no, we’d better hurry up and pass a lot more laws!
To start with, we must have the following things put, by law, behind the counter:

• Kerosene
• Gasoline
• Propane
• Paint, paint thinners, lacquer, etc.
• WD-40
• Nail polish remover
• Lighter fluid, butane lighters
• Cleaning fluids and spot remover
• Non-stick coating spray cans
• Shoe polish
• Glue, rubber cement
• Hair sprays and spray deodorants
• Magic Markers

Oh, yeah, and better get those cans of whipped cream. And the helium balloons.
We’re going to need a much bigger counter.
Look. Some kids are going to find ways to get high, and nothing you can do as a legislator is going to stop that, so stop deluding yourself into thinking you have that power. In fact, you should be aware that just about anything you do is likely to have unintended consequences that will make things worse (like the way cracking down on legal amphetamines spawned the methamphetamine home cooking craze).
Good parenting, truthful education, and harm reduction approaches will do more to save young lives than your stupid laws.