Drug WarRant

An excellent OpEd from Ruth Blauer, executive director of the Maine Association of Substance Abuse Programs, in the Sun Journal. Link
I admit that I have sometimes questioned the motives of some drug treatment professionals (see anything I’ve said about Andrea Barthwell), but Ruth seems to be the real deal, and she nails the HEA drug provision that prevents students from receiving federal financial aid if they’ve had a drug conviction.

Perhaps the most detrimental legislatively erected barrier is the law that denies college financial aid to people with drug convictions on their records. Blocking access to education is both senseless and harmful to those who are in recovery, as well as to their families, friends, neighbors and society at-large.

This policy, which has barred more than 160,500 would-be students from receiving aid, is the result of a provision added to the 1998 Higher Education Act. Lawmakers from Maine and around the country should work to repeal the HEA drug provision and help affected students get back into school as soon as possible.

Preventing people from higher education does nothing to prevent drug abuse or help people get over their addictions. Actually, being enrolled in college reduces the likelihood that people will head down the path to drug abuse. […]

Additionally, receiving an education reduces the likelihood that individuals coming out of prison will return to engaging in illegal activity, including drug use. […]

Lawmakers should encourage people returning to communities from prison or struggling with addiction to move beyond their stumbling blocks, but the HEA drug provision threatens their chances of becoming productive members of society. Graduating more college students means increased tax revenue from greater economic productivity, whereas incarcerating more prisoners means that taxpayers must pay the bill for increased criminal justice spending.

Quote of the day:

The drug provision is not a deterrent to drug use; it’s a deterrent to recovery.

I admit that WorldNetDaily is not my usual first place to turn for news (or anything), but Steve Young pointed out a fascinating/bizarre article by conservative author Jim Rutz.
Now obviously it’s no big deal for conservatives to support drug policy reform. William F. Buckley, Jr. and many others have been leading voices for change. But I don’t recall seeing many far-right American Fundamentalists calling for drug policy reform.
I think Rutz qualifies. This founder of Megashift Ministries has already confidently stated that the entire world is going to become Christian and wipe out the liberals, and noted:

…let me wave my tiny set of conservative credentials: I stand somewhere between Joan of Arc and Wyatt Earp, I support any conspiracy theory that can be explained in Basic English with a straight face, and I will enter any contest in which first prize is dinner with Ann Coulter.

So what does Rutz have to say about drug policy reform? Check this out:

We now have a way to halt the illegal drug trade.

It will require twin solutions — one at the supply end of the pipeline, the other at the demand end.

Let’s look at the demand problem this week. That’s the easy one because it can be solved by government decree: Just get Congress to pass a law legalizing drugs and setting up super-discount outlets for heroin, pot, and other flavors of dunce drugs, and — poof! — the game is 90 percent over.

He has some… interesting… suggestions (clearly tongue-in-cheek):

The magic of the forbidden fruit will evaporate, especially if President Bush decides to skip the government emporiums and sell exclusively through churches. (At least that would beat bingo and bake sales as a fund-raiser.) Envision this remark in a circle of teens slouched around your TV set on Saturday afternoon: “Hey, guys, let’s go buy some crack from Father O’Toole and get high tonight.” Approximately 12 seconds after the sale, your phone would ring with the news, and you and the other parents would come down on your kids like an avalanche down Everest.

That’s assuming the kids were desperate enough to go ask the pastor to sell them some dope — and look like drooling idiots.

The thing is, he really does understand. If you can wade through his references to liberals and sin, and get to the meat of his statements, they make sense.

One big factor that keeps drugs attractive to the young is the excitement of getting away with something forbidden. […] Drug dabbling is going to be with us for awhile. But that doesn’t mean regular drug use will continue to be a problem. […] The main force that keeps drugs so popular in the United States is the war against drugs. […] So let’s change the law.

Yep.

Fabulous news from Students for Sensible Drug Policy:

SSDP Executive Director Scarlett Swerdlow, also a member of the National Organization for Women’s National Young Feminist Task Force, spent the weekend in Nashville with Deborah Small of Break the Chains, Jean Marlowe of the Women’s Organization for National Prohibition Reform, Angelyn Frazer of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, and Wyndi Anderson of National Advocates for Pregnant Women. Deborah moderated an amazing session exposing the War on Drugs as a stealth attack on women, children, communities of color, and other traditionally underrepresented and -served populations.

Most importantly, though, NOW adopted a resolution that opposes the War on Drugs and in its stead supports an approach to drug use, abuse, and addiction that fosters compassion, health, and human rights. Plus, the resolution obligates NOW to educate its leadership and membership about the unique impact the War on Drugs has on women through the use of the organization’s site, resources, materials, and literature, as well as through regular legislative updates, especially on pending drug laws and policies that impact women. Finally, SSDP and others will work with NOW to convene an ad hoc committee to research current drug laws and policies with a particular impact on women and develop an action plan to be implemented locally and nationally by NOW chapters and the NOW National Action Center.

This is extremely welcome news. It is so vitally important that we continue to increase the involvement of all kinds of groups in fighting against the excesses of the drug war. We need groups on the left and the right and everywhere between.
We’ve got cops. We’ve got churches and other religious groups. We’ve got women. We’ve got teachers and students. We’ve got lawyers and other professionals. And that’s just scratching the surface.
Every bit we do to educate people adds to the collective intelligence of the population regarding the drug war. And more groups and individuals join the call for reform. Eventually, we’ll reach critical mass, and the drug warriors will have no base.

Joe Baker in the Newport Daily News does a marvelous job of ridiculing Governor Donald Carcieri, who vetoed the medical marijuana bill: Carcieri way off on pot facts.
Just go read it. It’s loads of fun.

Both the New York Times and the Dallas Morning News discuss the failures of the drug war in Mexico. Both are interesting, and give a clear sense of the futility of current drug policies.
The Times article focuses mostly on the corruption of the police…

Not one of the officers denied that there were abuses and corruption in their ranks. […] The starting salary for the typical municipal police officer is less than $350 a month, better than a factory worker but less than the average cab driver. They get only basic medical treatment if they get hurt on the job. And their families get just enough to bury them, less than $6,000, if they are killed on duty.

One officer described how he would handle an encounter with a drug trafficker:

“I would tell them: ‘I do not want to work with you. But I am not here to fight you, either. They do not pay me enough for that,’ ” the shift commander said. ” ‘Just do not bother me, or my family. I will not bother you, and we can all live in blessed peace.’ “

The Dallas paper took it further, going into an in-depth picture of the entire messy situation in Mexico

Mexico finally is fighting the war on drugs that the U.S. government has demanded for decades: a frontal assault on drug barons, their organizations and their merchandise, using the police and military in concert with U.S. intelligence. […]

But a rising chorus of voices in Mexico and the U.S. says the real results are record levels of violence, instability and corruption in Mexico, resurgent drug cartels, nearly 200 dead police officers and soldiers, along with millions of wasted dollars in a country where half the population of 105 million is poor. Mexico receives almost no aid from the U.S. government.

And the result in the U.S.? No noticeable drop in the supply of cheap drugs — and an actual decline in the price of cocaine, according to a new U.N. report.

What makes this article particularly interesting is that a couple of times they voice the unspeakable:

The Americans pressure us to carry out a head-on drug war, and when the situation starts to get out of control, the Americans complain that there is violence on the border,” said political commentator JosÚ Antonio Crespo. “There is no way of making them happy because they always have some reason not to be.”

Before the violence spirals out of control, as it has in Colombia as a result of similar policies, Mr. Crespo said, Mexico should go back to pretending to fight an unwinnable war rather than fighting it in earnest.

“If the United States is not going to legalize drugs, then Mexico has to come to terms with the narcos,” he said. “There were agreements in the past to let 80 percent of the drugs through, to allow some seizures for the Americans and for the media, and there was a lot less violence.”

And…

U.S.-inspired drug policies have been “a negative in terms of cost” to such countries as Mexico and Colombia, said Gary S. Becker, economics professor at the University of Chicago. He said the drug war has hindered Colombia’s economic growth rate and “the preoccupation with cartels has hurt the country.”

“Mexico may be moving in that direction,” said Dr. Becker, who won the Nobel Prize for economics in 1992. “This is a very expensive process for the U.S. and other countries, and there’s little bang for the buck, as it were.

“My conclusion is that we have to look at more radical solutions such as legalization of drugs.”

Dr. Becker acknowledged, however, that such a development is unlikely any time soon, noting that “the vast majority of politicians are unwilling to take on legalization in any serious way.”

This is a big step in journalism. Not only pointing out the horrible futility of the current policies, but actually having the courage to at least mention the “L” word is a serious context.

Here’s another amazing example of drug war gone crazy. Yorkshire Post reports of five men who just had their sentences formally quashed due to being set-up by a bizarre customs enforcement scheme in England.
Here’s how it worked: British customs officials would find a professional informant to buy drugs in Pakistan and then fly them to Britain to deliver the drugs to a “customer,” who would be arrested. The informant would get a nice reward, out of which he would pay his drug supplier in Pakistan. Both the informant and the drug supplier could continue to get this income as long as they found people to set up.

Defence lawyer James Wood QC earlier told the court: “Significant quantities of heroin were permitted to be distributed on to UK streets.
“Such rewards were paid to informants that the international trade in heroin was, in part, funded.

“All the while, the courts of the UK, and the authorities in Pakistan, were kept in ignorance of the true role which officers of Customs and Excise and informants were playing.”

Celebrate and Remember…

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

No, not that one…
This one: Secret report says war on hard drugs has failed:

A secret Downing Street report on crack and heroin, suppressed by ministers, has discovered that the government’s war on drugs has failed.

The document, seen by The Observer, was one of several papers on key areas of government policy prepared by the strategy unit at the Cabinet Office and overseen by policy tsar Lord Birt.

Researchers found that stamping down on hard drugs through the police and courts had little effect on production and found no evidence that attacking drug supply had any impact on the harm caused by heroin and crack users. The full report provides a powerful argument for legalising drugs so they are not controlled by criminals. […]

The full findings of the 105-page report contained such a devastating critique of the government’s policy of prohibition they are unlikely ever to be published.

The suppressed pages, seen by The Observer, show that Downing Street experts found that the international drug war, led by the US, simply displaced production from one country to another.

More government cover-ups. More denial. More of the same broken prohibition policies.

Libby beat me to this one, too. I’d really like to see this in some other media sources, but this is very exciting news. In fact, it should be front page.
From Fred Gardner at CounterPunch, comes this:

Marijuana smoking -“even heavy longterm use”- does not cause cancer of the lung, upper airwaves, or esophagus, Donald Tashkin reported at this year’s meeting of the International Cannabinoid Research Society. Coming from Tashkin, this conclusion had extra significance for the assembled drug-company and university-based scientists (most of whom get funding from the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse). Over the years, Tashkin’s lab at UCLA has produced irrefutable evidence of the damage that marijuana smoke wreaks on bronchial tissue. With NIDA’s support, Tashkin and colleagues have identified the potent carcinogens in marijuana smoke, biopsied and made photomicrographs of pre-malignant cells, and studied the molecular changes occurring within them. It is Tashkin’s research that the Drug Czar’s office cites in ads linking marijuana to lung cancer. Tashkin himself has long believed in a causal relationship, despite a study in which Stephen Sidney examined the files of 64,000 Kaiser patients and found that marijuana users didn’t develop lung cancer at a higher rate or die earlier than non-users. Of five smaller studies on the question, only two -involving a total of about 300 patients- concluded that marijuana smoking causes lung cancer. Tashkin decided to settle the question by conducting a large, prospectively designed, population-based, case-controlled study. “Our major hypothesis,” he told the ICRS, “was that heavy, longterm use of marijuana will increase the risk of lung and upper-airwaves cancers.”

So here was a study going in with the notion that they would find a causal relationship between marijuana smoking and lung cancer. What did they find?
Absolutely no increase in odds of marijuana smokers getting cancer, regardless of amount of use.
In fact, in all categories of pot smokers, the odds of getting lung cancer were actually less than in the control group!

Libby at Last One Speaks nails it.
This article in the Globe and Mail points out that the police in Canada are having a harder time busting grow-ops since a new privacy regulation prevents utility companies from ratting out paying customers based on their power consumption.
Between the lines, though, you immediately see that the grow-ops, while previously using dangerous techniques to steal the power, causing millions of dollars of losses for the utilities, are now paying for it as good consumers. Everybody wins… except the prohibitionists.
Jackl in comments also notes:

I have been told by people managing in the billing and customer service areas of public utilties that they’re also really nervous about people possibly coming to see the innocuous meter reader or lineman, who often has to enter customers’ premises, trying to do his/her job, being a potential surveillance agent working for the police.