Drug WarRant

Link
I’ll talk about this more later. Details still need to be sorted out. But even if all you read is the Sherrif’s report, it’s incredibly clear that the intent of law enforcement was to attack, not to protect and serve. Not only was no effort made by law enforcement to correct known permit deficiencies (assuming there were any), but they actually went out of their way to encourage a violent confrontation.
Update: Video available here
Thanks to jackl for the tips and updates and particularly to Ben Masel for his efforts to geet the media to really cover this story. Expect some more balanced reporting in tomorrow’s papers.

It’s just not worth the risk.

Via Cannabis News

Washington — Hearings opened today in the American Civil Liberties Union’s challenge to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s policy of obstructing privately funded, FDA-approved scientific research that could lead to marijuana being approved as a prescription medicine.

“Despite the DEA’s contentions, the public deserves and, increasingly, demands a full and fair scientific evaluation of the possible health benefits of medical marijuana,” said University of Massachusetts Professor Lyle Craker, Ph.D. “As a scientist, it is my job to make plant material available for research. The DEA’s refusal to permit me to grow marijuana for research necessarily prevents an accurate assessment of this plant’s potential medicinal properties.”

The proceedings, which are scheduled to last through the week, mark the culmination of more than four years of Professor Craker’s efforts to obtain permission to produce marijuana for use in studies on the plant’s medical benefits. Professor Craker, who filed his initial petition in June 2001, seeks a DEA license to grow research-grade marijuana for use in privately funded, FDA-approved studies that aim to develop marijuana into a legal, prescription medicine — an undertaking the DEA has maintained would run counter to public interest.

Kudos to Professor Craker, who has been tireless in these efforts, and to the ACLU.
However, before you get too excited, consider the scope of these hearings:

The hearing is taking place before a Department of Justice-appointed Administrative Law Judge, who will issue recommendations to the DEA Administrator based on the hearing’s findings. Such recommendations, while non-binding, nonetheless influence the DEA and are the sole administrative avenue for appealing the DEA’s regulatory decisions.

Baby steps. Baby steps. Follow every avenue. Every legal procedure. Eventually, the accumulated efforts may cause the empty lies to collapse in on themselves.
What’s frustrating is that all it would take is one President with integrity who, with a single stroke of his or her pen, could re-schedule marijuana.

As I was reading this New York Times article and, in particular, the various quotes from supposedly learned people and political leaders, I coudn’t help but be reminded of this old story:

There are four blind men who discover an elephant. Since the men have never encountered an elephant, they grope about, seeking to understand and describe this phenomenon. One grasps the trunk and concludes it is a snake. Another explores one of the elephant’s legs and describes it as a tree. A third finds the elephant’s tail and announces that it is a rope. And the fourth blind man, after discovering the elephant’s side, concludes that it is, after all, a wall.

It’s not really that specifically apt an analogy, but it is instructive of the degree of the disconnect to the reality of the drug war, and the inability or unwillingness to see or admit to the whole picture.
Gonzales is deluded if he things that some shallow shifts in administration “policy” are going to do anything useful (or even reduce the criticism), or if he thinks that seeking “the harshest penalties possible” against meth cooks will do anything positive. Walters is deluded if he really thinks he can walk and chew gum at the same time. Kleiman is deluded if he thinks that a shift in stated government policy is actually going to make drug prohibition work. Califano is deluded if he belives himself to be a sentient being. Michael O. Leavitt is deluded if he thinks a new media campaign against meth use is going to provoke anything more than laughter (or fear of dentists, given the approach they’ll likely use). Jim Talent is deluded if he thinks that cold-sufferers suffer is going to stop meth.
Blind men all.

I was wandering around the net, and ran across a blast from the past:

And you may see me tonight with an illegal smile
It don’t cost very much, but it lasts a long while
Won’t you please tell the man I didn’t kill anyone
No I’m just tryin’ to have me some fun.

That’s from the chorus of “Illegal Smile” by John Prine (iTunes link)
I immediately downloaded the song on iTunes and it gave me a huge legal smile. Go ahead. Spend the 99¢. (I particularly like the line: Bowl of oatmeal tried to stare me down… and won)
Prine got his start performing in the Chicago folk clubs in the 1960’s and came out with “Illegal Smile” around 1971. His songs range through folk-blues-bluegrass-country.
[By the way, for a powerful, but much less upbeat song of Prine’s, listen to “Sam Stone” (There’s a hole in Daddy’s arm, where all the money goes). It’s a song we should probably be heeding now, given all the Iraq war casualties who will be facing a difficult transition to life back in the states.]
What are your song recommendations? (I’d like to put together a list.)

Several others have already commented on Mark Souder going off the deep end in a letter to HHS (reported in the Washington Times).
He was pissed off because Health and Human Services was listed as a sponsor for a conference that includes harm reduction approaches. You see, Souder not only doesn’t support harm reduction as a concept, but he fervently believes that even discussion of that nature should not be allowed. The sponsorship in question amounted to only $3,000 in travel funds — I’d be willing to bet that more than $3,000 in taxpayer funds is used to wipe Souder’s ass each year.

Rep. Mark Souder, Indiana Republican, said in an angry letter sent Friday to Health and Human Services ( HHS ) Secretary Michael O. Leavitt that the conference’s approach to end the nation’s “war on drugs” in favor of programs that try to limit drugs’ harmful effects undercuts federal policy. “That administration officials from your department are consulting with harm reduction advocates … and sponsoring conferences controlled by the harm reduction network completely undermines the work of the President, the Congress and the men and women who work in law enforcement across the nation who are trying desperately to fight the meth epidemic,” wrote Mr. Souder, chairman of the House Government Reform subcommittee on criminal justice, drug policy and human resources.

I’ve begun to believe that Mark is a Sado-Moralist. You see, he doesn’t care if drug policy works. He doesn’t care if drug policy reduces drug use. He doesn’t care about reducing the harm caused by drugs. He cares about punishment. He may even get off on it.
The problem with harm reduction from his point of view is that it necessarily means that some people who used drugs are going to be helped, rather than punished. It doesn’t matter that harm reduction works. He’s not interested.
He’s been the driving force behind the denial of financial aid to students who use drugs. While he says it’s because students who use drugs aren’t taking advantage of their subsidized education, he’s got to know that there are methods for measuring that (grade point average affects financial aid), and that his policy causes more harm than benefit. But it doesn’t matter. He can’t stand the notion that students might enjoy using drugs without having to pay in some way. He needs to punish them.
He doesn’t particularly care that the drug war is an abject failure, as long as people who are enjoying themselves are being punished.
In fact, I can imagine that if not enough people used drugs, he’d find it perfectly acceptable to go out there and sell drugs to people himself, as long as he could bash them over the head afterward. He might even enjoy it.
It’s always been clear that Mark was a moralist. It’s only recently that I’ve been looking at the sadist angle. Once you see his desire for punishment (along with the intense anger in his reactions), it seems to fit. What do you think?
Mark Souder, Sado-Moralist

A Peter Bagge cartoon at Reason.

Via The Agitator comes this story…
Sheriff George H. Payne, Jr. destroyed 500 marijuana plants in a field… except that they weren’t marijuana plants — they were kenaf plants being grown for deer food. Now kenaf plants can have a wide range of leaf styles and some of them are similar to hemp. But anyone with any training (or access to the internet) can easily tell the difference. And you would think that it would be the reponsibility of the police to verify that something was illegal before destroying it, wouldn’t you?
Not according to a federal judge, who ruled that grower Marion Waltman wasn’t due any compensation for his lost crop.

Guirola determined that Payne was acting within his official capacity and within the scope of discretionary authority. Qualified immunity shields Payne from liability because his conduct was “objectively reasonable.”
[…]

“Virtually all of the law enforcement officers at the scene … mistakenly identified the kenaf crop as marijuana. Thus, it was not objectively unreasonable for Sheriff Payne to reach the same conclusions.”

Apparently if enough officers are stupid, then the standard for objectivity is lowered. Also, according to this judge, destruction based on assumption is a reasonable act for law enforcement.
Fortunately, Waltman’s lawyer plans to appeal.
Again, this isn’t just a silly/funny story about “oops, the police made a mistake.” This goes into the whole drug war notion that citizens don’t have rights — that the police are able to feel that they can go and destroy something without cause or special authority, and that there are no repercussions if they’re wrong.

In a Christian Science Monitor article about the drug cartel violence in Mexico (remember, we trained many of them), John Walters says:

“In a way the violence is terrible but also a sign that the cartels are being squeezed by government.”

I’m sure that will make the locals feel better.
Also:

…others, including Mr. Walters, the director the US Office of National Drug Control Policy, say its only a matter of time before the border violence reaches into the US.

I guess we should be grateful?

A big thanks to Kevin, who sent me the August editorial in Nature Neuroscience titled “Brewing a pot of hysteria.”

Although the benefits of smoking marijuana remain controversial,
the government has already decided that THC itself has medical benefits.
Marinol — a synthetic derivative of THC — is federally approved
to reduce nausea and stimulate appetite in patients suffering from
cancer or HIV infection. (Curiously, Marinol is classified as a schedule
III drug, indicating that it is considered less dangerous than THC,
with which it shares both chemical structure and biological activity.)
Marinol is effective in treating vocal and physical tics due to Tourette’s
syndrome. In clinical trials, oral sprays of a marijuana plant extract
called Sativex reduce muscle spasms in patients with multiple sclerosis.
THC also seems to be beneficial in treating neuropathic pain
or glaucoma. Moreover, THC is a relatively safe drug: according to
Daniele Piomelli, the director for the Center for Drug Discovery at
the University of California, Irvine, it would take about 70 grams of
pure THC to cause serious damage to a 150-pound adult. It is therefore
difficult to justify the DEA classification of THC as a class I drug
with no medical value.

This decision has potentially dangerous implications for science. It
reflects a belief that there can be no value in investigating the medical
properties of marijuana because the issue is settled. […]

In light of the data, more research into the medical effects of marijuana
is clearly warranted. Indeed, a report from the US National
Academy of Sciences (http://books.nap.edu/html/marimed) on
medical marijuana concluded that “…the existing data are consistent
with the idea that this would not be a problem if the medical use of
marijuana were as closely regulated as other medications with abuse
potential.” Thus it seems hard to justify regulations that allow doctors
to prescribe cocaine and morphine, but not marijuana.

This is some good stuff for the effort to re-schedule marijuana, and a nice slap at the feds for continuing to attempt to justify marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug.