Drug WarRant

Via NORML’s ezine comes this ruling: (I’m quoting extensively, because it’s pretty important)

Traverse City, MI: The presence of cannabis’ primary metabolite, THC-COOH, is insufficient evidence of impairment to warrant a conviction under the state’s “zero tolerance” per se drugged driving law, according to a recent ruling by the Michigan Court of Appeals. The decision upholds a trial court ruling that found the “prosecution must prove that the presence of a controlled substance in a defendant’s body is proximate cause of an accident resulting in death or serious injury” in order for the defendant to be guilty of violating the state’s two-year-old drugged driving statute.

Michigan is one of ten states that have enacted so-called “zero tolerance” drugged driving laws. Under Michigan’s law, it is a criminal offense for an individual to operate a motor vehicle with any detectable level of a Schedule I substance present in his or her bodily fluids. (In six states – Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, and Utah – individuals may be criminally prosecuted if they operate a vehicle with any level of a Schedule I drug or drug metabolite in their system. Three additional states – Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Virginia – have enacted per se drugged driving standards, prohibiting individuals from operating a motor vehicle if they have levels of Schedule I drugs present in their body above a specific threshold.)

In the case before the court, the defendant tested positive for the presence of the THC metabolite THC-COOH (a non-psychoactive compound produced during the body’s biological process of converting THC into a water soluble form), but maintained that she was unimpaired at the time of her accident. The prosecution argued that it was not required under Michigan’s “zero tolerance” drugged driving law to establish that the defendant’s impairment caused the accident, only that she had an illegal substance present in her body. The appellate court upheld the trail court’s ruling, affirming that marijuana’s metabolite is neither psychoactive nor classified as an illegal substance, and that the prosecution had failed to prove a causal relationship between the presence of a controlled substance in the defendant’s body and the accident.

Michigan’s Supreme Court had previously held that the legislature did not “intend to impose strict liability on an individual” involved in a driving-related accident, the appellate court determined. Rather, the legislature’s intent is to criminally punish only individuals whose impaired driving causes another person’s injury.

“The defendant’s purposeful operation of [a] vehicle while under the influence must have been a substantial cause of the victim’s death,” the court of appeals determined. It further found that the “legislature did not intend to include [the cannabis metabolite] as a Schedule I controlled substance because it has no pharmacological effect on the human body … and its levels in the blood correlates poorly, if at all, to an individual’s level of THC-related impairment.”

As a result, the appellate court ruled, “Imposing a penalty on a driver when the … accident would have occurred regardless of that intoxication would … fail to serve the purpose of the statute.”

An excellent ruling. These zero tolerance laws are ridiculous, becuase they proclaim to be about safety, yet the levels being tested have absolutely nothing to do with impairment.
It would be the equivalent of saying that if anyone had ever seen you take a drink in the past, then you’re now guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol.
Let’s hope that this kind of sanity continues in other court cases. Legislatures and law enforcement must be held to a standard of actually proving impairment (or a reasonable expectation of actual impairment) if they’re going to enact/enforce substance-related driving laws.

Great article in the Rolling Stone by Robert Dreyfuss

America’s long-running war on drugs has, literally, gone to pot.

More than two decades after it was launched in response to the spread of crack cocaine — and in the midst of a brand-new wave of methamphetamine use sweeping the country — the government crackdown has shifted from hard drugs to marijuana. Pot now accounts for nearly half of drug arrests nationwide — up from barely a quarter of all busts a decade ago. Spurred by a Supreme Court decision in June affirming the right of federal agents to crack down on medical marijuana, the Drug Enforcement Administration has launched a series of high-profile raids against pot clinics in California, and police in New York, Memphis and Philadelphia have been waging major offensives against pot smokers that are racking up thousands of arrests.

By almost any measure, however, the war has been as monumental a failure as the invasion of Iraq.

Harsh. Nice. (Although I’d say that the drug war is worse failure.)

“For Walters, it’s all marijuana, all the time,” says Graham Boyd, director of the Drug Law Reform Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. “He is reinforcing the atmosphere that marijuana is the drug we should care about, and that the government will do everything it can, including locking everyone up, if that’s what it comes to.”

Good one, Graham. And true.
The whole article is worth a read.

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Seeing Drug War Religious Extremists Mark Souder and John Mica rake the Drug Czar’s office over the coals for not being tough enough in the war on drugs is simultaneously hilarious and sad.
The Representatives made it clear that Meth is the new Heroin (or the new Crack, or the new pot that’s so powerful that it’s the new crack, or something) and that the administration had better do something about it. This, of course, is a problem for the administration since marijuana is their only path toward their numbers goals (there just aren’t enough meth users that can be easily coerced into quitting in order to help the Czar’s percentages.)

Rep. Tom Osborne, R-Neb., formerly head football coach at the University of Nebraska, said meth poses a greater threat to U.S. society than foreign terrorists.

“Meth is the biggest threat to the United States, maybe even including al-Qaida,” Osborne said.

Whoa! That’s different! Meth isn’t the new Heroin. It’s the new suicide bomber. Which makes it part of the war on terror!
But wait — the war on terror is now over! It’s been renamed the “Global Struggle Against Extremism.”
And since Souder is an extremist … (OK, this is getting confusing) … then the war against meth has become a struggle against Souder, right?
Right?????

President Bush has sent a new nomination to the Senate for confirmation as Deputy Director for Demand Reduction, ONDCP to replace Andrea Barthwell. (Note: the word “vice” also means “to replace” — just seems odd to use it there.)

The nominee is Bertha K. Madras, a researcher with Harvard Medical School. Her expertise appears to be in neurobiology, and she focuses on dopamine, finding drugs to cure cocaine addiction, the neurobiology of ADHD, Parkinson’s and others (including primate work), along with specialized forms of brain imaging. She’s done some cameos for the Drug Czar in the past, and she’s been involved in some educational outreach programs related to addiction. She’s also received the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Public Service award, presented by Nora Volkow, director of NIDA.
I don’t know too much about her, but despite her strong ties to prohibitionist shills, her scientific credentials seem legit. What I don’t understand is why she’d give up her research work to go parrot the czar’s propaganda.
And does she know that working for the Drug Czar seems to corrupt people? When Andrea Barthwell went to work for Walters, she talked about wanting to make a difference in terms of shifting drug policy more toward treatment instead of prohibition. And colleagues of hers (whom I know) thought highly of her back then. They say she changed. Clearly not for the better.
Do you really want this job, Bertha?

That’s right — two years ago today, I started blogging. I thought at the time that I’d post once a week or so (since this is post #1062 I think you can see that my estimate was a bit off).
I just went back and looked at my first post. It was a report on the debate over the Hinchey Amendment to stop using federal funds to go after medical marijuana patients. I’ve now covered that failed attempt in 2003, 2004, and 2005. A bit depressing, but, on the other hand, there have been tons of incredible new accomplishments over the past two years in our fight to bring sanity back to drug policy.
Thanks to Adam, Avedon, Baylen, Ben, Daniel, Daksya, desertcat, disgustedvet, David, Ethan, ezrydn, filchyboy, gemsbok, Herb, Jacob, jackl, Jeff, Jeralyn, Jim, John, kaptinemo, Klay, Kris, Krissy, Kwix, Libby, lorax, Loretta, M. Simon, Matt, Mark, nephalim, norbizness, nhop, Radley, Randy, Richard, SayUncle, Scott, Sister Geoff, sixtyfps, Steve, Tad, Taylor, Terry, thehim, Tom, Walter, Yan and lots of others whom I’m sure I’ve left off this list. The encouragement and discussions have made continuing this blog a joy.
Lots more to do.

Link

IROQUOIS FALLS, Ont. — Police in northern Ontario have charged a Toronto man after they found marijuana fields stretching “three football fields in length” in what is considered to be one of Canada’s largest pot busts.

Investigators found more than 21,000 marijuana plants behind a home nestled in the woods of Iroquois Falls, east of Timmins.

Interesting story in the New York Post today.

Osama bin Laden tried to buy a massive amount of cocaine, spike it with poison and sell it in the United States, hoping to kill thousands of Americans one year after the 9/11 attacks, The Post has learned.

The evil plot failed when the Colombian drug lords bin Laden approached decided it would be bad for their business…

The story interestingly highlights some important differences between terrorists and drug traffickers. Drug traffickers are running a business (albeit an often horribly violent, murderous one) that is profit/bottom-line oriented. Political actions are only used as a tool to increase profits. Terrorists, on the other hand, use money as a tool to further their “political” activity. Despite the attempts to link the two, there are strong reasons why they often do not mix well, and this is one such case.
Sure, there are likely instances of terrorists profiting from drug trade (and the Post article goes on to dredge up some ancient Asa Hutchinson claims in that area), but those are primarily a result of the profitability caused by prohibition.

Flex Your Rights.org has put together a handy Citizen’s Guide to Refusing New York Subway Searches. If you’re going to be riding the subway, check it out.
It is always important to know, celebrate, and defend your rights as an individual. Seems to me that’s part of being an American.
Radley Balko notes that Jeff Jarvis is fine with the searches.

And what precisely is the privacy problem? If the cops catch you carrying something illegal, well, you shouldn’t be carrying anything illegal. If they catch you carrying the latest Playboy — or, more embarrassing, Radar — then don’t worry; they’ve seen worse.

Sure thing, Jeff. You won’t mind then if we go through your nightstand and closets? Or do a body cavity search on you? After all, if you haven’t done anything illegal, why should you worry? Yep. Sounds like a great way to beat those who hate our freedom.

This is old news now (happened while I was out of town), but just in case you missed it, here’s from the press release by SSDP:

WASHINGTON, DC – A U.S. House committee voted today to scale back the
provision of the Higher Education Act that denies federal financial aid
to students with drug convictions. The change will allow students with
past convictions to receive aid, but students convicted while in college
will still be stripped of their aid eligibility. While the partial
reform to the HEA Drug Provision could help some of the more than
160,500 students affected by the law, many will still be left behind
without aid. The Drug Provision was originally enacted in 1998.

An amendment to scrap the provision entirely, sponsored by Reps. Danny
Davis (D-IL), Rob Andrews (D-NJ), and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), failed by
a committee vote of 29-18.

“After seven years of political rhetoric and empty promises, Congress is
finally acting to help some students affected by this terrible policy,”
said Scarlett Swerdlow, executive director of Students for Sensible Drug
Policy (SSDP). “But this partial reform is like slapping a band-aid on
a gaping wound. Tens of thousands of students will continue to be
yanked out of school every year. Students around the country are
outraged and will continue to work against this misguided policy as long
as it remains on the books.”

.
Event though this is a disappointment, congrats are due to Students for Sensible Drug
Policy (SSDP) who have worked so hard to bring this to national awareness.

Just like to keep tabs on Andrea Barthwell (this one isn’t even drug war-related). Here’s an instance where she’s quoted in the media telling the truth.
In this article about teens and driving, they turn to Andrea as an expert in her role as co-chair of End Needless Death. I’ve always wondered what she does in that role, and this article did nothing to further explain it.
Now I don’t know who’s more to blame here, Andrea, or the local ABC station, but did you really need an expert to give you this quote?

“There’s nothing more painful that a parent’s pain at the loss of a childe or seeing that their future has been cut out because of a severe disability following a crash,” said Dr. Andrea Barthwell, co-chair, End Needless Deaths
[I’ll assume the typos were from ABC.].

Good thing they turned to the co-chair of End Needless Deaths. Otherwise I would never have guessed that it’s painful when a parent loses their children.