Drug WarRant

Nice editorial in the Providence Journal about the HEA financial aid provision.

The editorial also stuck it to the politicians who turned their backs on it.

That’s what we need to see more of — political cost for supporting (or failing to change) stupid drug war laws.

Well, we haven’t gotten Osama yet, but the federal government has Steve Tuck in custody.
What can I tell you about this terrorist? I didn’t know much about him until recently (and what I do know is still a bit sketchy).
Steve Tuck served in the US military, and while part of the military, his parachute failed to properly open. Miraculously, he didn’t die.
He did, however, have 13 back surgeries and a metal plate inserted in his lower back. The pain requires high doses of morphine, which can be reduced somewhat by the use of marijuana.
But then he turned terrorist. What did he do? He helped supply medical marijuana to sick people in California! Well, federal agents were on the ball and swarmed down on him, but he was able to sneak past their net and across the border (to Canada).
In Canada, Steve got involved in medical marijuana activism. This, combined with his bold move of actually smoking pot in a marijuana club in front of our Drug Czar. This apparently caused the feds to make Steve Tuck one of the most wanted, probably just behind that #2 Al Queda operative they keep catching.
So they infiltrated the weak Canadian police and grabbed Steve. He now is in the United States, in custody, denied morphine and medical care. Just like a terrorist.
MarijuanaNews.com is the place to follow his story. (More here.)

Via Cannabis News:

That’s right. By eliminating marijuana smokers, you’re dumbing down the FBI! And of course it’s true. Almost 50% of the U.S. population has tried pot. That’s a huge reduction in your hiring pool.

You mean you’d use actual decision-making in your hiring and find the best person for the job? What a concept! Except, that’s how I’ve always hired people. I didn’t realize I was so far ahead of the field. Maybe it would work in other areas.

Yep, it’s getting difficult to keep up with that zero tolerance stuff and still have a competent work force.

Thank you, Tommy.

Thanks to Tim Meehan. Info at Drug Sense

Here’s the article in French and the study.
While we can laugh at the embarrassment of the French in this case, we’re quickly sobered by the fact that the U.S. government in this situation would simply ignore the study and pretend that it didn’t exist, or, if confronted, claim that the study was meaningless.
Every major study (here are some more) has shown that driving under the influence of marijuana (while not recommended) is far less dangerous than many other influences (including alcohol or fatigue).
Politicians who call for zero-tolerance driving laws (which usually include positive tests from having smoked pot in recent days) have absolutely no interest in safety. They just want to have another way to punish people who use marijuana responsibly. And to do so, they want to re-direct police resources that could be used to target impaired drivers.
That’s not embarrassing. That’s deplorable.

A big thanks to Mark for “This is Burning Man” from my Amazon wish list! I hope to go someday, but in the meantime I’ll enjoy Brian Doherty’s book.

This is just silly. Via the always excellent >Drug Sense Weekly: Cannabis Smoking Leads To Criminality, Judge Tells Arsonist

Well, what exactly was the evidence that led the judge to this remarkable conclusion? Check this out:

I’m used to the idea that people automatically assume that if anybody uses pot and also does something bad that it’s the fault of the pot and not the person. But to single pot out of that laundry list of problems above is just irresponsibly stupid.

Casey gently reminded me today that I hadn’t talked about Gonzales v. Oregon.
[For those unaware of the case: Oregon passed a law allowing physicians, at the request of terminally ill patients in certain circumstances, to prescribe a specific drug mix that would allow them to peacefully die. Attorney General John Ashcroft stepped in and said that if any doctors did so, he would revoke their license to handle drugs listed in the Federal Controlled Substances Act. The State of Oregon appealed to the Supreme Court. This is a case that involves both the reach of the CSA and also states’ rights and commerce clause issues. Oral arguments were heard last week.]
I haven’t talked about it much recently because, quite frankly, I put quite a lot of effort and anticipation into Raich, and even though I knew the odds were likely against my prediction, it was a bitter disappointment when SCOTUS ruled against us. I’m not prepared to get that attached to Gonzales v. Oregon.
I do think it’s an important case (particularly as it relates to the CSA and states’ rights), and I hope Oregon wins (Radley Balko’s view on the subject is close to mine). But in general, I’m mostly interested in waiting until the decision and analyzing the votes and opinions. This is the first case heard by new Chief Justice John Roberts, and his opinion in the case may say a lot about what we can expect from him in the future (early reports are not good based on his questioning — Tom Goldstein notes that “the federalism ‘revolution’ was actually more of a ‘petty insurrection’ and George Bush has now officially put it down with the change from WHR to JGR.”)
Oregon is not the same as Raich, and there is some reason to believe that Oregon may prevail. Most reliable predictions I’ve seen, put it at a slight win for Oregon, or a 4-4 tie if O’Connor leaves before the decision.
A nice overview of the oral arguments is presented in They’re Dying in Oregon
Should the Supreme Court save them? by Emily Bazelon in Slate.
It shows just how tricky the case is and both attorneys were dancing around some nasty potholes. At one point, the government’s attorney Paul Clement tried to bring in Raich, noting that the Supreme Court ruled last term that states didn’t have the authority to prescribe marijuana.

And this is the point where I don’t know if I should laugh or cry. It may end up that states can prescribe lethal drugs because the federal government has classified them less “bad” than marijuana. If Oregon succeeds, then our government will have determined that states do not have the right to save lives (with pot), but they can end them (with Schedule II drugs).
Excuse me while my head explodes.
This does, however, emphasize the importance of drug policy reformers continuing the fight to get marijuana re-scheduled (Once marijuana is no longer Schedule I, Raich becomes essentially irrelevant, and Oregon may become a partial precedent for deciding future medical marijuana cases.)
And another important point. We cannot depend on the Supreme Court to do our work for us. Raich taught us that. It would have been easier if SCOTUS had told the executive and legislature that we have rights. But remember that SCOTUS didn’t make the laws or go after medical marijuana patients. If it wasn’t for legislators and administrations tossing away the constitution in their quest for power over us, there would’t have been a Raich or Oregon.
We need to work to change those who make and enforce the laws (and we can — more on that later), as well as continuing the pressure on federal agencies.
For more detailed analyses of Gonzales v. Oregon, see these at SCOTUS blog by Tom Goldstein and Lyle Denniston. Also read Does Pot Lead to Suicide for Supreme Court Justices? Vague Commerce Clause precedents give free rein to personal preferences. by Jacob Sullum.

Remember that Loretta Nall has announced that she’s running for Governor of Alabama? Well, I know some of you are saying, “Yeah, but it’s not like she has a chance or anything — and the press will just dismiss her as some hippy pothead.”
Not so fast.
While it’s true that her chances of winning are slim, there’s a really good chance that she could get some real visibility. And as far as being considered a wacko fringe candidate? Not a chance, standing next to Judge Roy Moore (of Ten Commandments fame, seen here autographing his new book“) and soon-to-be-indicted Don Siegelman.
This race is going to bring out the press for the entertainment value alone.
It’s going to be worth watching, and supporting.

Check out the beginning of this AP article:

What’s wrong with this article?
First, the statement “Cocaine is killing the great nature parks of Colombia.” No. Drug traffickers are destroying the parks, not cocaine. And why? Because the eradication program has pushed them to these locations.
Now this doesn’t in any way excuse the actions of the traffickers, or make what they do right. But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out this would happen. A child could tell you. It’s the traffickers fault that the parks are being destroyed, but we could have prevented it if we didn’t blindly follow the god of prohibition.
Now let’s take a look at another part of that quote:

Here AP invents a fantasy set of alternatives. In the author’s mind, there are two options:

1. Have plentiful cocaine, or
2. Spray destructive weed-killer

But those alternatives don’t actually exist. Years of “eradication” have shown that there has been no impact on cocaine availability. So in actuality, the alternatives are:

1. Have plentiful cocaine or
2. Spray destructive weed-killer and have plentiful cocaine

Now which one makes more sense?
On Sunday, US Ambassador William Wood urged Colombia to spray weed killer in the parks. No surprise there. If we don’t care about the lives of the farmers and their crops and ecosystem, why should we care about…

First we create a set of conditions that encourage traffickers to damage the parks. Then we go in and finish the job with weed killer.
Aren’t we the smart ones.

Interesting analysis in the Bangkok Post regarding terrorism and Southeast Asia includes this bit:

Yeah, I’d like to see some further examination, too.