Drug WarRant

The text of the omnibus spending bill approved by the House includes the following remarkable passages (pages 213-214):

“Sec. 538. None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, to prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

“Sec. 539. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used in contravention of section 7606 (“Legitimacy of Industrial Hemp Research”) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–79) by the Department of Justice or the Drug Enforcement Administration.”

Via Tom Angell of Marijuana Majority who suggests:

“Congressional leaders seem to have finally gotten the message that a supermajority of Americans wants states to be able to implement sensible marijuana reforms without federal interference. This legislation greatly reduces the chances that costly and senseless DEA raids will come between seriously ill patients and the doctor-recommended medicine they need for relief. Now that Congress has created political space by taking this important legislative step, there are no remaining excuses for the Obama administration not to exercise its executive power to reschedule marijuana immediately. The attorney general can begin that process today with the stroke of a pen.”

Now, this is still just the House, and still just a first step, but for this kind of language to actually get passed in the U.S. Congress… pretty amazing.

Rand Paul on marijuana: ‘I made mistakes’

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) hinted to a local Kentucky television news station that he smoked marijuana in college. […]

“Let’s just say I wasn’t a choir boy when I was in college,” Paul said, “and that I can recognize that kids make mistakes, and I can say that I made mistakes when I was a kid.”

Just stop that, will you?

I also smoked pot in college. It wasn’t a mistake. It was a conscious, informed decision that provided numerous measurable benefits to me during my time in school. I don’t regret it, and if I could go back in time, I would do it again.

Let’s stop making excuses for something that needs no excusing.

Samuel T. Wilkinson from the Yale School of Medicine blindly follows the S.A.M. playbook in The marijuana industry is following the trail blazed by Big Tobacco.

Kevin Sabet’s crew keeps pushing this narrative as if it were an actual legitimate argument instead of an insincere ploy to scare people without cause.

In the late 19th century, the landscape of tobacco consumption was very different than it is today. Tobacco use was much less prevalent, and cigarettes accounted for a tiny portion of consumption. Yet by the mid-20th century almost half of U.S. adults smoked, with major consequences for public health. Despite important health policy achievements since, cigarette smoking remains a major contributor to the top causes of death in the United States, including cardiovascular and lung diseases, as well as cancer. […]

Alarmingly, marijuana businesses are now mimicking many of Big Tobacco’s successful strategies.

Guess what? Cannabis isn’t tobacco, and the 21st Century isn’t the 20th century. Scientific knowledge has changed, political realities have changed, social awareness has changed, so any comparison between big tobacco then and “big marijuana” now is unfounded, plus… cannabis isn’t tobacco.

If we are intent on legalizing marijuana for recreational use, lessons from the tobacco industry and the Dutch marijuana experiment suggest that we do so in a way that does not pit corporate incentives against the interests of public health. Similar to efforts in Uruguay, production and distribution should be done solely by the government so as to ensure that there is no corporate incentive to entice more people to consume marijuana in larger quantities.

This is also disingenuous. Wilkinson and the S.A.M. clones know full well that government-run distribution is impossible at this stage, in part because of opposition from people just like them. Not one of these folks has seriously suggested reform that would allow a government regulated approach, but rather use it as a fake argument to forestall legalization.

The reason that commercial entrepreneurship is the model for marijuana legalization today is because it is the only model that is possible in the face of federal obstructionism.

If Wilkinson and Sabet want to complain about the commercial market, then they should be complaining about federal interference with state options.

Still not perfect, but here are two examples of drug policy that help to drive home just how incredibly horrendous is U.S. policy.

Netherlands: ‘You will not be arrested for using drugs’: What a sane drug policy looks like

Now a truly good policy would have cocaine legally regulated so you don’t unexpected ingredients in your cocaine, but this is far better than what we would do.

Canada: Canada Begins Prescribing Heroin to Those Already Addicted

Canada has become the first country in North America to implement a medically prescribed heroin dispensing program. Often called ‘heroin maintenance programs,’ these initiatives help heroin addicts who fail to respond to conventional treatment, typically methadone.

This kind of program has been proved effective for years, and yet we still are unwilling to consider anything like it in the U.S.

It’s no surprise that marijuana became a player in the #Ferguson controversies. Michael Brown’s use of cannabis was a major part of the grand jury discussions, essentially playing the part of explaining the need to shoot 12 times to stop a marijuana-crazed black man.

BBC: Ferguson: Did prosecutors focus unduly on marijuana?

“There’s actually no reason to believe, based on the available research and the scientific understanding of pot, that marijuana would actually make someone more violent,” Lopez writes.

“This makes sense to anyone with even a vague notion of marijuana’s effects. Pot is most popularly known as a sedative that relaxes users. One of the prominent arguments against its use, in fact, is that it makes users so sedated that they’re lazy and, as a result, unproductive.”

When word of the positive blood test first was leaked in October, however, some marijuana critics were quick to call attention to the drug.

“Brown’s death … should serve as a tragic reminder that marijuana is not harmless, that it is not just like alcohol,” Christian Thurstone, an addictions psychologist, wrote in his blog (in a post that has since been deleted), “that its consumption often leads to impairment that is very difficult for the public to measure – also making it tough for the public to hold users accountable for the harm they’ve caused others. Marijuana users also could be vulnerable to aggression and attacks while under the drug’s influence.”

For extra fun reading, check out our old pal Cliff Kinkaid, who has weighed in on the subject: Marijuana Figures Big in Ferguson Meltdown

Reporters like to laugh about the old “reefer madness” film depicting crazy conduct resulting from marijuana use. It’s not so funny anymore.

I spent the past week in Wisconsin with family and to attend the baptism of my grand-nephew. I apologize for the lack of posting here, but family took priority for a time.

Obviously, #Ferguson was a huge topic of conversation at a lot of Thanksgiving dinner tables.

Here’s a post I made for friends on Facebook with some drug war relevance that I thought I’d share with you…

…

Continue reading →

USA Today came out with an editorial opposing civil asset forfeiture. When police play bounty hunter: Our view

Civil asset forfeiture is government at its absolute worst — intimidating helpless citizens for its own benefit. It needs to go away.

Wow. Pretty strong statement. Excellent work.

USA Today also prints an opposing view. On this issue, it was from, no surprise, someone who represents a law enforcement association: Asset forfeiture deters criminals: Opposing view by John W. Thompson, interim executive director of the National Sheriffs’ Association.

Sheriffs and police chiefs across the country have developed asset forfeiture programs that promote fairness, protect property owners’ rights, meet legal requirements and successfully target criminal activities. Sheriffs and chiefs often stress seizing drugs over assets, as removing illegal drugs from American streets is the critical priority.

Yeah, right. You can say it, but that doesn’t actually, you know, make it… true.

Disturbing article from the excellent new The Marshall Project: Right and Left Unite on Drug Sentencing. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

There’s a big bi-partisan push for sentencing reform. What could go wrong is that Senator Charles Grassley will now be chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Current mandatory minimum sentences play a vital role in reducing crime,” Grassley said in May, in one of several statements explaining his opposition to the bill. […]

So far, Grassley hasn’t indicated he’s changing his mind. “I’ve raised concerns about people pushing importing [sic] heroin into the country, of having their sentence reduced, I think you gotta’ be very careful what sort of a signal you’re sending,” he recently told Slate.

Grassley has repeatedly highlighted what he calls a “heroin epidemic” as a reason to preserve mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. But federal data on heroin use does not support those claims.

His press secretary says he has “not yet laid out an agenda” on criminal justice for the coming session. In a statement announcing his new position, Grassley highlighted his continued focus on strict enforcement of drug laws. “He’s a true advocate for victims of crime and is a leader in the fight to keep illegal drugs out of the hands of young people.”

We’ll have to wait and see what happens, but it’s a real concern.

This has been out for a bit (and even had some discussion in comments here), but I really wanted to put it front and center, because this kind of thing really demonstrates the kinds of outrages that exist in the drug war.

Island Lake fatal crash cited as Illinois no-tolerance DUI pot law is challenged

In December 2011, Scott Shirey and his 10-year-old twins, Griffin and Nicholas, were driving to swimming practice.

Along the way, a distracted driver in an overloaded pickup truck ran a red light at Route 12 and Old McHenry Road near Lake Zurich and slammed into Shirey’s Lincoln sedan, killing Griffin and severely injuring Nicholas.

Even though another driver caused the accident, it was the Island Lake father who faced up to 14 years in prison. He was not impaired at the time, but Shirey, now 52, was charged two months later after a blood test showed traces of marijuana in his system from — according to his attorney — smoking it a month beforehand.

“Nothing can possibly illustrate this idiotic law more than the Scott Shirey case,” defense attorney Patrick O’Byrne said. “It’s incomprehensible how bad the law is. It’s a worst-case scenario, charged with the homicide of your own son for smoking pot that had nothing to do with the accident.”

Yet prosecutors, law enforcement and Attorney General Lisa Madigan unequivocally support the law.

That’s just sick.

I have been banging the drum about the dangers of the push against drugged driving for years here, and have even been cautioned upon occasion from other reformers that seeming to be “soft” on drugged driving would hurt legalization chances. I disagreed then, and disagree now. Marijuana per se laws that do not address impairment are essentially a back-door method of criminalizing internal possession of marijuana, something that is candidly acknowledged in Illinois:

“The legislature has said, ‘If you’re going to consume these illegal drugs — illegally — you can’t drive,'” said Kane County State’s Attorney Joe McMahon, noting the law clearly states drivers testing positive for any amounts of the drug are breaking the law.

Fortunately, there are some efforts to change the law in Illinois – a move supported by the state bar association.

Of course, the police organizations continue to be opposed to changes, including the ever-present rep of the Illinois Police Chiefs, Limey Nargelenas, who, as usual, spouts his lies:

“We in law enforcement don’t write the laws. We merely enforce them.”

Yeah, he says that every time he and his cohorts apply pressure on the legislature to pass and keep the laws he likes.

SNL Mocks NYC’s New Weed Policy: You Can Have It, But You Can’t Smoke It In Public

Nicely done humor piece.

Via Maia Szalavitz, an example of the complete lack of professionalism (and facts) in so much drug science reporting. A study showed that, in a study of Emergency Department (ED) visits 2/3 of overdoses were from prescription opioids. So that site, among others, reported that “Such overdoses were a factor in more than two-thirds of ED visits nationwide that year.”

Um, no. There are other reasons that people go to Emergecy than just overdoses.

What made this particular article so worthy of inclusion as the example was this gem: “They found that not only were prescription opioids involved in 678.8 percent of overdoses…” Wow, that’s a significant percentage.

I’ve been busy with another project recently – I’m actually acting in a play this time. It’s “Viral” by Mac Rogers – a very black comedy with some very controversial subject matter, including suicide and fetish. I play Snow, a distributor of “specialized entertainment.” Opens tonight and runs through Wednesday.