Drug WarRant

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.

While much of the press is going to go nuts analyzing the future of three or four specific issues (probably not including the 4th, 9th, or 10th amendments — my areas of concern), this article at Reason is one of the most interesting.
Reason interviewed a wide range of legal experts (from the left to the right, but with libertarian leanings) to get their views of the past, present and future of the court.

Now that Justice O’Connor is retiring from the Court, I just thought I should officially make it clear that I am willing to serve, if nominated.

Link

CHICAGO — The City Council passed an ordinance Wednesday banning the sale of marijuana-flavored lollipops, gumdrops and other treats, becoming the first major city to prohibit the confections that have appeared in convenience stores nationwide.

The candies are legal because they are made with hemp oil, an ingredient used in health foods and some household products. The oil imparts marijuana’s grassy taste but not the high.

“I can’t imagine the degree and the extent to which people will go to make a buck — and to make a buck on kids, trying to get them to experiment with something that is going to be a lead-in to the use of marijuana,” said Alderman Edward M. Burke, who sponsored the measure.

There have been a number of places talking about doing this — I didn’t think Chicago would be first. It is, of course, an absolutely ridiculous ordinance. The notion that you’re going to stop kids from trying marijuana by banning something else as well?
I’m sure the only thing they’ve done is make the candy more interesting.
When I heard all the fuss about this candy earlier this month, I decided to check it out myself and wandered over to Chronic Candy. I can see why the anti-marijuana-regardless-of-its-use politicians wouldn’t like this — it’s as much a slap in their face as Cheech and Chong. Here’s a web site that revels in the joy of marijuana and makes their candy part of that culture. They’ve got slogans like “Every lick is like taking a hit” and note that their candy is “made with love not with stress.”
I ordered a half-ounce, which just arrived yesterday (that’s actually 40 lollipops). At that quantity, they’re about a buck each, which is steep for a normal sized sucker, but then again, you’re ordering it in part for the fun of it. They’re actually quite good. A light taste, not overwhelming, but unmistakable. Sort of like lime… with a twist.
But not in Chicago. At least, not in the stores. I’m sure Chronic Candy is reeling from the ordinance… and all the free publicity.
Side note: Other things that Chicago is currently considering or has passed bans on… sparklers (Happy Independence Day!), smoking (the largest ban ever, including all public indoor facilities, outdoor structures, free standing bars, and outdoors within 25 feet of any of any entrance to any of the above), and taverns. What’s happening to Chicago?

Coming home from work today, I saw some guys putting up a large sign right next to the main drag through town (Bloomington, IL). It read:

4th of July – Defend your Freedom – Celebrate the Bill of Rights

Made my day.

That’s the beauty of a free country. And today’s idiot is Steve Steiner of Dads and Mad Moms Against Drug Dealers (that would be DAMMADD for you acronym buffs).
Here’s the press release:

DAMMADD: Video Footage Exposes Pro Drug Movement
TIOGA CENTER, N.Y., June 29 /U.S. Newswire/ — If there was ever any doubt about the lie that has been perpetuated on the American people about “medical marijuana”, this video clip should put the matter to rest.
http://www.sorosmonitor.com/medical_hoax_access.mpg

Ooh, damning footage from dammadd?
Well, let’s go to the videotape!
Ah, I see… they cobbled together some badly cut segments of video without detail or context, and, judging from the clothing and hair styles, some of them were shot back while George W. Bush was in his partying days.
First up:

Richard Cowan, former director of NORML (National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws) advises the Drug Policy Foundation (now Drug Policy Alliance) that the avenue to legalization of marijuana is by getting thousands of people to use it on the pretense that it is a medicine.

Nope. Sorry Steve. You just lied. View the video. What Richard Cowan is saying is that when thousands of people start legitimately using medical marijuana, then the propaganda that has been used against recreational marijuana will be exposed as the scam it is, and people will realize that they’ve been lied to.
You see, Steve, I fully admit that I am for legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes. And I fully admit that I believe legalization of medical marijuana will help reach that goal. However, that doesn’t mean that medical marijuana is a lie. I also want to help those who need marijuana as their medicine, and even if I knew that recreational marijuana was an impossible goal, I would fight for the rights of patients. You, on the other hand, also know that legalization of medical marijuana is a likely path toward eventual legalization of recreational marijuana (for the exact reasons that Richard Cowen mentioned). You also know that medical marijuana works. Yet you would intentionally inflict pain and death on these innocent people in order to further your obsession. For that, Steve, you are scum.
Part 2 of the video:

Ed Rosenthal, editor of High Times Magazine, jokes about his undiagnosed latent glaucoma, not a problem because he treats it medically…by getting high. He likes to get high.

The editor of High Times Magazine in the 1970’s(?) jokes about liking to get high. Can you say “Duh”? Next you’ll roll out some videotape “revealing” that Cheech and Chong smoked pot in a movie.
Part 3 of the video:

Batting cleanup is the infamous Marsha Rosenbaum, who works for the Drug Policy Alliance, largely financed by George Soros, whose mission is to legalize drugs. Rosenbaum maligns her professional status by promoting the concept that we should be teaching children responsible use of illicit drugs…irrespective of the fact that alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs have devastating impacts on children whose minds and bodies are not fully developed, and in open defiance of the laws that exist to protect children by making any use of these controlled substances illegal.

So let me get this straight. Since D.A.R.E. has been an abject failure and abstinence education has tanked, the last thing you’d want to do is explore other alternatives that might reduce the harm to children? That might mean less children like yours have to die?
Look, Steve, I know you lost your son to prescription drug overdose and I’m sorry for your loss (and I would never have considered mentioning it in this post if you didn’t regularly bring it up on TV). But the way you’re going about this is not going to help future children or their fathers. Mindless prohibition causes death and destruction. Harm reduction and proper medical — and yes, regulated recreational — use saves lives. Stop being DAMMADD and start being smart.

Update: It appears that the media have mostly been smart enough to avoid this piece of crap, although it did show up at (in)Accuracy in Media with good old Cliff Kinkaid (I’ve talked about this moron before), who seems to agree that the video “proves the case” that medical marijuana is a fraud. Guys like him are quite the joke.

This article is your fairly standard teens-have-the-most-fatal-car-accidents-exposÚ, and would not be of interest to me, except that Andrea Barthwell was quoted (as co-director of a physician-led group called End Needless Death On Our Roadways — an organization whose entire purpose appears to be to allow Andrea to ocassionally be quoted as co-director of it, while channelling some more treatment business her way.)
Anyway, here’s the quote that made me fall off my chair:

“Sometimes you can’t legislate all of the changes you need,” said Andrea Barthwell, co-director of the physician-led group. She said parents have to be brought into the campaign against risky driving because they are often the only ones who know they have risk- and thrill-taking kids. [emphasis added]

Yep, we may have to actually involve parents in raising their kids, because “sometimes you can’t legislate all the changes you need.”
Mind like a blotter. Soaks it up, but gets it all backwards.