Drug WarRant

It’s easy to see why Emery pisses off the DEA so much…

Marc Emery took a hit from a joint as his fans smoked and screamed for his freedom in front of the U.S. consulate.

Silja J.A. Talvi of In These Times gives us an outstanding article at Alternet:
Smoked Out.
Although the author stumbles slightly with an unsupported lung cancer reference (which I correct in the comments there), this is an outstanding indictment of the war on marijuana (and a delightful read).
A couple of highlights:

In many ways, modern-day government hysteria about the dangers of marijuana is far more distorted and far-fetched than the scare tactics that were employed under Harry J. Anslinger’s reign at the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.[…]

With all of this knowledge available to the federal government, the extremist position of the ONDCP isn’t just nonsensical, it actually sounds more and more like the product of truly paranoid, delusional thinking.

Whatever the reasons behind this kind of thinking, we do know that the ONDCP and successive presidential administrations since Nixon’s reign have been deadly serious about supporting this agenda, leaving no room for debate, much less any form of dissent. The extreme extent to which pot (and pot smokers) have been criminalized over the last few decades has had the effect of skewing what marijuana really is and isn’t capable of doing to a person. […]

In an interview with Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist Joel Connelly, Mayor Campbell put it as matter-of-frankly as possible: Drug czars are the most ill-informed people in government … [John Walters] is pushing an agenda that doesn’t fit in the real world. He’s in denial.”

He’s right, and the U.S. war on marijuana (and on illicit substances in general) is an abject failure. The emperor is wearing no clothes whatsoever; we should be willing to call his bluff.

Go read the whole thing.

As John Roberts’ confirmation hearings begin, here are a few Supreme tidbits:
“bullet” Jack Shafer discusses the late Chief Justice Rehnquist’s drug addiction to placidyl.
“bullet” From Grits for Breakfast, a reminder that Roberts appears to not be much of a friend to the Fourth Amendment.

…during his brief tenure on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. He upheld the government’s search or seizure every time….

“bullet” On the other hand, I found this particular section of John Roberts’ opening statement intriguing, although I can’t say how much it means to us:

Mr. Chairman, when I worked in the Department of Justice, in the office of the solicitor general, it was my job to argue cases for the United States before the Supreme court.
I always found it very moving to stand before the justices and say, “I speak for my country.”
But it was after I left the department and began arguing cases against the United States that I fully appreciated the importance of the Supreme Court and our constitutional system.
Here was the United States, the most powerful entity in the world, aligned against my client. And yet, all I had to do was convince the court that I was right on the law and the government was wrong and all that power and might would recede in deference to the rule of law.
That is a remarkable thing.
It is what we mean when we say that we are a government of laws and not of men. It is that rule of law that protects the rights and liberties of all Americans. It is the envy of the world. Because without the rule of law, any rights are meaningless.

Fascinating.

In the Boston Herald:

“The war on drugs has become a war on sick people and doctors are caught in the cross fire,” said Harvard-trained Dr. Frank Fisher, a California pain doctor who was slapped with drug and murder charges in 1999 that were later dropped.

Fisher is among a group of experts meeting today at a Washington, D.C., conference to discuss the effects of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s “war on prescription painkillers.”

The government’s campaign has doctors “scared to death” to prescribe certain painkillers and patients who need them can’t find physicians to treat them, said Radley Balko, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute, host of the conference.

Go get ’em, Radley!

… then your head get gets stuffed up. You start coughing — you know, that racking cough that makes you sore. Every time you try to lay down, your head feels worse.
You need sleep.
So you go to the all-night convenience store to get that magical bottle of relief. You’re already thinking about how well it works. How you even almost need to sit on the edge of the bed when you drink that little plastic cup because it’ll put you to sleep so fast. And you’re hacking and sniffling on the way to the convenience store, but it’s all right, because you can almost taste the delicious night of sleep.
But…
The convenience store doesn’t sell it anymore. You have to go to a pharmacy (tomorrow), wait in line with your I.D., put your name in the computer, have it check to make sure you haven’t already purchased some this month, and then, you’ll be able to purchase that nighttime, sniffling, sneezing, coughing, aching, stuffy head, fever, sleep better to feel better medicine.
But not tonight.
Tonight, you’re just screwed.
Link

WASHINGTON, Sept 9 (Reuters) – The U.S. Senate moved on Friday to stop the proliferation of illicit methamphetamine labs by limiting sales of common cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine, a primary ingredient in the illegal drug.

The Senate approved the measure as an amendment to an appropriations bill funding law enforcement activities as well as a range of federal agencies. That bill is expected to be approved next week.

The amendment, sponsored by Sen. Jim Talent, a Missouri Republican, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, would move cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine, such as Sudafed, NyQuil, and Tylenol Cold, behind pharmacy counters and limit how much one person can buy to 7.5 grams a month, or about 250 tablets of 30 milligram each.[…]

Under the amendment, customers will be required to show a photo identification and sign a log. The bill envisages a computer tracking system to stop people from buying pills at multiple stores.

I’m sure this will stop the meth addicts. They’ll just stop doing drugs and become productive members of society. They won’t import the stuff, or find alternate means, or create worse drugs, or anything…
[See also Libby’s post at Last One Speaks.]

Link

With police officers and federal law enforcement agents ratcheting up the pressure on [New Orleans] residents to leave, the holdouts worry that it is just a matter of time before they are forced out.

Ms. Harris said she did not want to leave. “I haven’t even run out of weed yet,” she said.

Health and Human Services announced today the results of the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health
I’m sure that there will be a number of interesting bits of data in this year’s results that I’ll talk about later, but there’s one general point that I wanted to address today: the “need” for treatment.
I’ve had concerns for some time about the definitions for abuse and dependence that are used when dealing with illicit drugs and alcohol. For example, the survey shows that 17.6 of those who used marijuana in the past year are classified as abusers or dependent, while that’s true of only 11.9% of those who used alcohol. Of course, in actuality, marijuana causes far less (and far milder) dependence than alcohol, but because “abuse” also includes definitions that are affected by the legal status, that jacks up the percentages for marijuana abuse.
The next step taken by the government study is to classify everyone in the “abuse” or “dependent” categories as “needing treatment.” They give no reason for this arbitrary judgment. And it’s pretty offensive, in my view.
Let’s take a look at a drug that isn’t covered by the survey: tobacco. Many Americans are dependent on cigarettes, and yet it would be odd to consider them all as needing treatment. They may need to decide to quit (and then have no problem doing so), or they may need to get some help quitting (such as a patch or a support group). But to say that merely because they are dependent, they are in need of treatment, sounds like a definition that has been written by treatment professionals to increase their business.
Back to illicit drugs and alcohol, if you take a look at the study’s own numbers, you see how preposterous the designations are. Of those supposedly needing treatment and not getting it…

According to the study, 23.48 million people (or 9.8% of the American population over 12 years old) needed treatment. Wow! What a cash opportunity for the treatment industry. And that’s right, of the 21.1 million who supposedly needed treatment and didn’t get it, only 1.2 million people actually felt that they needed treatment. Maybe 20 million people are delusional. But I doubt it.
The entire concept of “treatment” (and the definitions of those who need it) in drug policy data, needs to be re-examined from the ground up (and not by those who benefit from it). The mere fact that a study can claim that roughly 1 in 10 Americans need treatment is a strong warning sign that the data and/or assumptions are seriously flawed.

Via NORML

London, United Kingdom: The downgrading of cannabis to a non-arrestable offense has not been associated with an increase in adolescents’ use of the drug, according to survey data published by the United Kingdom’s Department of Health.
The Department found that the number of young people who admitted having consumed cannabis in the past year fell from 13 percent to 11 percent in 2004 – the first reported dip in four years.
In January of 2004, Britain downgraded marijuana from a Class B to a Class C scheduled drug. Under this reclassification, individuals found in possession of personal use amounts of marijuana are cautioned by police, but, in general, are no longer arrested. (Police do retain the discretion to make an arrest under special “aggravated” circumstances, such as if marijuana is smoked on school grounds.)
Preliminary data published last year by the British Home Office indicated that far fewer Britons have been arrested for minor marijuana offenses since the drug’s reclassification.

Virgo: August 23 – September 22
Despite your claims of historical importance and the need to remember America’s fallen heroes, the authorities continue to refuse to grant you the permits required by your avid group of drug-war re-enactors.

From The Onion
Ah, how I look forward to the day when we have drug war re-enactments. Bringing out those museum-piece battering rams, “patting down” people on the street, and pretending to search passing cars…

This has been reported widely already while I was gone (See Grits, and The Agitator (with not one, but two links to rebuttals), and Hit and Run.)
However, it bears repeating here.
The DEA, at their new JustThinkTwice website, is actually claiming that alcohol prohibition was a success!

A word about prohibition: lots of you hear the argument that alcohol prohibition failed—so why are drugs still illegal? Prohibition did work. Alcohol consumption was reduced by almost 60% and incidents of liver cirrhosis and deaths from this disease dropped dramatically (Scientific American, 1996, by David Musto). Today, alcohol consumption is over three times greater than during the Prohibition years. Alcohol use is legal, except for kids under 21, and it causes major problems, especially in drunk driving accidents.

Yes, the DEA is longing for the days when alcohol was illegal. How moronic!
Interestingly, at one of the other sites, a commenter suggested that we are being unfairly critical of the DEA — that it could be interpreted that they were just claiming the simple fact that there was a reduction in use, not that prohibition in its entirety (and with all its attendant problems) was a success.
But that, of course, is nonsense. You can’t ignore the myriad disasters of prohibition and just claim success in a numbers game of use. Particularly when you’re using that to justify continued prohibition in another area.
Just for the sake of argument, however, let’s take a moment and ignore all the violence, corruption, subsidization of criminal elements, uncontrolled dangerous/poisonous substances, collateral damage, increased exposure to youth, etc., etc.
Even if you ignore all that, the DEA’s argument is specious.
First, because they’re picking and choosing their numbers. If you read the Agitator’s links, you’ll see just how much they’re fudging (read “lying”).
Second, because a numbers game of “use” is useless. When prohibitionists tout the importance of, and supposed reason for, prohibition, they usually talk about the dangers and destruction caused by drugs/drug addicts. But when they use the numbers game, they’re actually talking about all drug use regardless of abuse/danger.
In fact, prohibition tends to only reduce casual, non-problematic use — those who prefer to follow the law (even if they disagree with it) and have only a mild interest in using the particular substance. Those who are likely to abuse drugs (or in the case of the earlier prohibition, alcohol) will tend to do so whether it is legal or illegal.
So, even a strong prohibition-fueled reduction in use has insignificant value in terms of actually helping those who need it, or reducing abuse.
Now, take that insignificant value and add back in all the negatives caused by prohibition and, whether it’s attacking alcohol or drugs, you have an inept and cataclysmic policy that destroys everything it touches.