Drug WarRant

Students for Sensible Drug Policy have put out this release:

Lawyers for the United Kingdom’s Department for Education
and Skills have warned Prime Minister Tony Blair that students who are
forced to take drug tests without consent as part of his anti-drug
initiative could sue for compensation under the ‘right to privacy’ in the
Human Rights Act.

The announcement comes less than one week after the U.S. House of
Representatives approved $10 million to fund the Bush administration’s
random student drug testing grants program, despite the largest-ever study
conducted on the topic showing no positive effect from the practice.

“As young Americans living in the ‘land of the free,’ we’re outraged that
students across the Atlantic have more rights than we do,” said Scarlett
Swerdlow, executive director of Students for Sensible Drug Policy. “Drug
testing is an unnecessary invasion of students’ privacy, especially since
it just doesn’t work.”

Go Scarlett!

After the Supreme Court decision earlier this month, John Walters:

“Today’s decision marks the end of medical marijuana as a political issue.”

Not so fast, John.
Yesterday, Rhode Island legislature passed their own medical marijuana bill. It passed the House last week 52-10 and the Senate yesterday 33-1. It looks veto-proof.
State #11.
John, as long as the administration blocks the standard scientific methods for approving medical marijuana, it will continue to be political, and nothing that you or the Supreme Court or Congress says can stop that.
Update: Jacob Sullum has more, including a discussion on the reason some people use different counts for the number of states supporting medical marijuana.

Los Angeles Times:

The Bush administration and congressional allies are gearing up to renew a plan for drug eradication in Latin America despite some grim news: The $5.4 billion spent on the plan since 2000 has made no dent in the availability of cocaine on American streets and prices are at all-time lows.

United Nations figures released this month show that coca cultivation in the Andean region increased by 2% in 2004 as declines in Colombia were swamped by massive increases in Peru and Bolivia. And the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said last week that the anti-drug effort had had “no effect” on the price or purity of drugs in the United States.

The findings have fueled skepticism in Congress, where conservative groups have joined efforts to lobby against continued funding. The National Taxpayers Union called the anti-drug program a “boondoggle.”

Nonetheless, a House committee last week approved the administration’s request for $734.5 million for next year as part of a foreign aid bill. Debate on the bill could start as early as today. President Bush also may unveil a renewed multiyear commitment to South American anti-drug efforts this year when Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, a staunch U.S. ally, is expected to visit.

“We are heading in the right direction and we are winning,” the federal drug czar, John P. Walters, told Congress last month.

What an amazing set of paragraphs right there. It paints such an incredible picture of how our drug warriors simply are not interested in facts.
The whole article is worth reading.
Update: Representative McGovern (D-MA) put forward an amendment today to reduce the $735 million budget for Plan Colombia by $100 million. It was defeated late tonight 234-189.
Wankers.

Those who have followed Drug WarRant for awhile may remember me talking about Julie Falco, an MS patient in Illinois who testified on behalf of medical marijuana in the Illinois hearings. I got a chance to meet her then, and she’s quite an amazing young woman. (Here’s a great article about her by Steve Young.
Well, Julie and her doctor, Dr. Anthony Reder, are applying for access to the liquid form of marijuana called Sativex¬. According to Americans for Safe Access:

“The introduction of Sativex¬ to Canadian markets vindicates what patients, doctors, and medical associations have been saying for centuries: marijuana is a safe and effective medication, “said Steph Sherer, Executive Director of Americans for Safe Access, the largest medical marijuana advocacy group in the country. “The bottom line is marijuana MUST be rescheduled so that we can have a real conversation about the best uses of marijuana as medicine, including the introduction of Sativex¬ to the US market.” (ASA information on Sativex¬)

Americans for Safe Access will be assisting a number of MS patients and their doctors through this application process, while they continue in their quest to change the schedule of marijuana from its current status, in the same category as heroin, to another category that recognizes the medicinal value of marijuana. Federal law allows for promising drugs that have been approved in another country, but not yet in the United States, to be used under the direction of a physician, pending special permission. The Investigational New Drug program (IND) is the means through which the sponsor (either a physician or pharmaceutical company) technically obtains this authorization from the FDA. The federal government has had a Compassionate Use IND program that has provided medical cannabis to patients for nearly 30 years. Only a handful of patients were ever approved to use NIDA‰s University of Mississippi-grown marijuana. Seven of these patients are still surviving and receiving their monthly allocations of medical cannabis.

Of course, I’ve talked about the IND program as well. And it seems likely to me that the government will deny this application. But once again they’re going to look bad doing it. This is what it takes. Keep chipping away.
Good luck, Julie. You deserve to get the medicine you need without having to be a criminal.
A press conference will be held on Wednesday at 11 am at the Kluczynski Federal Building, 230 S Dearborn St, Chicago.

Action Alert! Contact your Representatives.
Via NORML:

NORML is pleased to announce the introduction of H.R. 3037, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2005, sponsored by Reps. Sam Farr (D-CA), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Jim McDermott (D-WA), George Miller (D-CA) and Ron Paul (R-TX). This legislation is the first bill ever to be introduced in Congress to repeal the federal ban on the cultivation of industrial hemp as a commercial crop.

If passed, H.R. 3037 would allow states the legal authority to license and regulate hemp cultivation without conflicting with federal law. To date, several states have passed legislation authorizing the cultivation of industrial hemp for research and commercial purposes. However, farmers in these states can not legally grow hemp without federal permission to do so. House Bill 3037 would remove this federal hurdle by granting states “exclusive authority” to regulate the growing and processing of industrial hemp.

Currently, the United States is the only developed nation that fails to cultivate industrial hemp as an economic crop, according to a 2005 Congressional Resource Service (CRS) report. Hemp is a distinct variety of the plant species cannabis sativa that contains only minute (less than 1%) amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. Farmers worldwide grow hemp commercially for fiber, seed, and oil for use in a variety of industrial and consumer products, including food.

There really is no reason to deny farmers this additional crop, and the economic options that it gives. The drug warriors will resist this, of course, and here are the ridiculous arguments they’ll give (be ready for them):

1. This will interfere with law enforcement’s ability to eradicate marijuana and prosecute marijuana growers. Drug kingpins will hide marijuana grows inside so-called industrial hemp fields. (Of course, this has no validity. The worst thing you can do is mix marijuana and industrial hemp — cross-pollination destroys the value of both. As far as prosecuting… well, I assume that the prosecutor would need to test the seized marijuana. Aren’t they doing that now?)
2. What about the message that this sends to children? (Politicians should no longer be allowed to say those words — it’s the clearest indication that exists that they’re about to lie to you. The message we’re sending to children is that farmers are going to grow a crop that will be able to make a bunch of things, and that you can’t get high from it.)

My first reaction was to jump all over the story (which has been reported elsewhere) of DEA raids on medical marijuana operations in San Francisco (so quickly after the Supreme Court decision). Given the official stories of money laundering and ecstasy, etc. in conjunction with the busts, however, I decided to wait until I had more information.
After reading the latest report from the Legal Campaign Director with Americans for Safe Access, I am now prepared to call “shenanigans” at the DEA and the SFPD.
Here’s the report:

In order to explain ASA’s reaction to the recent raids, we offer this as at
least an interim analysis.

First, is has become clear that the DEA and SFPD (among other local law
enforcement agencies) were operating collaboratively to shut down medical
marijuana dispensaries at least two of which had been open for a number of
years, supplying patients with much-needed medicine. This cooperation would
appear to contradict the city’s medical marijuana sanctuary resolution from
2001 ,
as well as the District Attorney’s comments from last week in the SF Bay
Guardian affirming patients’ rights
and expressing an unwillingness to cooperate with the feds.

Second, the bulk of the indictments are for marijuana cultivation. This was
evidenced by the fact that the dominant agency during the raids was the DEA,
and that what was most visible was numerous plants being hauled out of the
facilities. While three indictments were for possession with intent to
distribute ecstasy, and another two were for “money laundering,” these
allegations are from proven and represent a common tactic by the feds to
create a smokescreen for their real intentions. In fact, the “money laundering”
accusations appear to be levied as a result of operators simply depositing
money from medical marijuana proceeds into a bank account. The allegations of
ecstasy distribution has no physical connection to any of the dispensaries.

Third, allegations of “organized crime” within a certain ethnic community
works to pit dispensing facilities, patients, and people in the “movement”
against each other in a “divide and conquer” strategy. Accusing only Asians of
illegal acts allows the feds to claim that the activities were gang-related,
thereby splitting liberal support for medical marijuana playing on fears of the
Asian mafia.

Fourth, the fact that the DEA made statements that differentiate medical
from non-medical also points to a “divide and conquer” strategy. The truth is
that the federal government does not believe marijuana is medicine regardless.
Their position and intent is not an accident, but likely well planned to
broadcast to California and the nation that dispensaries (and they are
implicitly grouping all dispensaries in this strategy) are just front operations
for drug dealing and organized crime. At a time when over 40 cities and counties
are deliberating regulations on dispensing, this is no mistake.

Fifth, no evidence appears to exist that these operations were anything but
medical marijuana operations. Again, two of the three dispensaries had been
operating for years, providing medicine to countless patients. The amount of
marijuana seized is consistent with the needs of the patients to whom they
were providing medicine.

Therefore, this is a time to come together in defiance against raids such as
these and for the medical marijuana movement to speak as a united front.
Similar federal activity happened a couple of years ago, but, due to a strong
patient response, the feds backed off. The drug war and the feds’ war against
medical marijuana is a political one, that, despite having very real
ramifications, is typically fought on the streets as opposed to a courtroom.
Before buying into their “divide and conquer” strategy, ASA invites everyone to
think critically about what has happened and join us in fighting back against
this affront to patients. Let us not forget that Bryan Epis, Ed Rosenthal, and
Scott Imler (among many others) have all been named criminals by the Federal
government.

Yep, it appears that the DEA is back to business as usual — using taxpayer money to harass sick people.

OK, sometimes I just need a little entertainment, and a column comes along that does the trick very nicely. In this case, it’s an OpEd by former Niles Police Chief Ray Giovannelli in the Journal Online (Northwest Chicago Suburbs): How To Win The War On Drugs (with a title like that, I had to check it out).

Finally, a court case decision I can live with.

Recently, the United States Supreme Court kept alive the federal government’s authority to enforce marijuana laws, even if states legalize it. In spite of this decision, the small but vocal groups of drug users and/or elitists – such as George Soros – who have been lobbying for drug legalization since the 1970’s, will continue their campaign.

Note the absense of the word “medical” in the description of the Supreme Court decision. And “drug users and/or elitists”? WTF? What would be the motivation for “elitists” to push for drug legalization? Ah, this is Ray’s way of explaining why so many intelligent non-drug users advocate reform — they must be part of this bizarre group of “elitists.”
He then lists our arguments:

Their points of logic include:

* The drug war has failed.

* We have filled our prisons with first-time, non-violent drug offenders.

* If drugs were legalized, drug dealers would go out of business.

* Some drugs, especially marijuana, are medicinal.

* We are spending an inordinate amount of money on the drug war.

Let’s take a closer look at this litany of allegations.

OK, not bad. Not exactly how I would have framed it, but a reasonable list. Let’s see how he takes us down.

First, as for the failing drug war, in 1979 the United States hit its peak of drug use for the 20th century. Approximately 24 million citizens were drug users. By 1992, due to the combined efforts of law enforcement, prevention and treatment, the number of drug users declined to about 11.4 million. That’s over 50 percent, despite some increases in marijuana use by high school students over the past few years (source: International Association of Chiefs of Police).

Just imagine, if we could reduce gang violence, teen pregnancy or HIV/AIDS by over 50 percent in a little over a decade. Could anyone in their right mind call that a failure and demand we stop the campaign?

Seems like a reasonable argument, right? Until you do a little further digging.
First, data on trends of drug use over time are horribly unreliable. They rely on self-reporting (which often reflects on public view at the time), and they are hit by changes in methodology (even the government charts have a bold line through them showing this). Plus, you can pick and choose figures to support just about anything.
Take a look at this Drug Use Trends Factsheet from the White House ONDCP. (there is plenty of other data out there, but this is useful enough for this purpose). If you look at overall population drug use in the past month, then Ray’s figures seem close to being correct (14.1% in 1979, down to 7.1% in 2001). But let’s have some fun with these numbers for ourselves:

• Lifetime drug use has gone up from 31.7% in 1979 to 41.7% in 2001
• Lifetime drug use for those 35 and older has gone up from 11.8% in 1979 to 38.4% in 2001 – more than tripled!
• Past month drug use has gone up from 5.9% in 1993 to 7.1% in 2001
• Past month marijuana use for those 12-17 has gone up from 3.4% in 1992 to 8.0% in 2001.
• Past month cocaine use by High School seniors has gone up from 1.9% in 1975 to 2.1% in 2001
• Past month drug use by 8th graders has gone up from 3.2% in 1991 to 9.2% in 2001.

There are all sorts of games you can play with the numbers. But if you spend some time with them like I have, there’s no way that you can see justification for declaring “victory” in the war on drugs.
The other point Ray makes there (about HIV or teen pregnancy) is just plain ignorant. You can’t compare them. And this is largely because Ray is talking about drug use, not drug abuse. Unfortunately, the government does a very poor job of tracking drug abuse (they don’t want to acknowledge the existence of non-abusive use), but I would bet that it may have actually increased as a result of the drug war (certainly not decreased). So a more fitting analogy for Ray to use would be as if the government had managed to reduce people having sex by 50%, yet the rates of HIV and teen pregnancy remained the same. (That would certainly not be cause for rejoicing.)

Second, as for the idea that it’s a bad thing to fill our prisons with self-proclaimed first-time users and non-violent offenders, our nation is experiencing a very low crime rate phenomenon for the past several years which has run concomitant with high prison populations. Simple coincidence? I don’t think so.

“I don’t think so”? That’s the justification for putting non-violent offenders in jail? (and note the sarcastic “self-proclaimed”) Is it possible that there might be other reasons? For example, the crime trend went sharply down from 1993 until about 2001 when it started to reverse and climb again. Might that relate to the state of the economy and jobs?

Third, to the assertion that legalizing drugs will put dealers out of business. To accomplish this, they have to be assuming that the legalization will be total, that is, no restrictions or conditions at all. Marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc., sold over-the-counter, because applying restrictions will require illicit sources for users and defeat their claim that dealers will simply disappear into history. By the way, fools do not run drug cartels. These are shrewd, criminally minded people who will devise other ways to hurt you.

This is just bizarre. Of course, you can apply restrictions. It’s called regulation, and we do it with cigarettes and alcohol and lots of other things. You can regulate it and tax it and condition it like crazy — you just have to make it easy enough to get so that it’s not profitable to sell on the black market. That allows for much more regulation than we have now (particularly related to age). And the other argument is equally bizarre — we’d better let the drug cartels continue to sell drugs, or else they’ll find some even worse fiendish thing to do to us, just because they like hurting us (not because of profits or anything).

Fourth, medical marijuana? Maybe, but if so will it require a doctor’s prescription or some other regulations? If the answer is yes, those who do not need the drug for medical purposes will have to break the law to get it.

Huh? I have no idea what he’s saying here. I think it’s that we shouldn’t allow medical marijuana (after all earlier said “Finally, a court case decision I can live with”), in part because recreational users will have to break the law… No. I’m lost here.

Lastly, they claim the cost of the drug war is too high.

Government was created to provide internal and external security for its citizens. Drugs are a threat to both. The portion of the federal budget spent on our entire criminal justice system is about one-to-two percent. This is hardly an excessive portion of that budget to spend for an essential government service as mandated by the constitution. Furthermore, the war on drugs only accounts for a fraction of entire criminal justice system.

Drugs are a threat to our security? That’s actually impossible, unless we fear a day when marijuana plants, left unchecked, will uproot themselves and march on Washington, ripping apart the White House brick by brick, like the Ents at Isengard. (Ah, let me savor that thought for a moment…)
What he may mean is that the profits from illegal drugs can fund criminals and terrorists — that’s a problem with prohibition, not drugs.
I also love the fact that he calls it “an essential government service as mandated by the constitution”! Is this what the constitution mandates?
He concludes (and this is where it gets really loopy):

I hope you can sense the lunacy in this effort to turn loose the deadly substances that have torn the fabric of our society and threatened future generations with the ravages that afflicted those of the ’60’s, ’70’s and ’80’s. Ultimate victory over drug use can be achieved by education, research, treatment, enforcement and efforts as simple as public outrage, similar to that directed toward tobacco use, or a citizen’s demanding a nation-wide, up-or-down vote on the issue of legalizing drugs.

Oh, yeah, the ravages of the 60’s and 70’s and 80’s. Remember when all those druggies grew up and became… stockbrokers. Oh, yeah, and Presidents. (But I love the colorful language: “turn loose the deadly substances that have torn the fabric of our society and threatened future generations with the ravages that afflicted…” Very nice.)
But we can win! If we just have “a nation-wide, up-or-down vote on the issue of legalizing drugs.” Again, may I say: WTF? This up-or-down vote meme has gotten so pervasive that now Ray is suggesting a national vote on drug legalization? How would this work? Put it on the ballot of all 50 states? I’d love to see the wording on that one.
Well, that’s it for this OpEd, folks. Been fun. A big hand to Ray Giovannelli (who has his own column called “Giovannelli Central”). Former Chief of Police. Ignorant, but funny.

The action alert I gave yesterday has been rendered unnecessary, as the amendment has been withdrawn.
Here’s a report from SSDP’s legislative director Ross Wilson:

Today, we witnessed the frustrating nature of politics in Congress and how good policy proposals can get brushed aside in the name expedience. Nonetheless, we took some important steps forward in drumming up congressional opposition to student drug testing.

While Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) spoke on the floor of the U.S. House about the importance of his planned amendment to cut student drug testing and use that money to fund youth offender reintegration programs, he never offered the amendment. Rep. David Obey (WI), the lead Democrat on Appropriations, had pressured members of his party NOT to offer amendments in the interest of being able to leave to go home for the weekend.

After speaking about the numerous fundamental problems with the appropriations bill in question and offering his own amendment to re-fund public broadcasting, Rep. Obey declared, “No amount of fixing can fix this bill….If members are serious about wanting to get out today, it would be nice if they could recognize the fact that we cannot dispose with 47 amendments in two hours.” The House ultimately did not complete consideration of the bill and will convene again tomorrow to do so.

Nonetheless, this should not diminish the work of Congressman Bobby Scott to address concerns about drug testing and the importance of youth reintegration programs. In his remarks, he pointed out the proven ineffectiveness of student drug testing and the numerous organizations that oppose it. I’m unaware of previous debates about student drug testing on the floor of the U.S. House.

SSDP, DPA, and the other organizations that signed on to our letter urging support of the amendment created a firestorm on Capitol Hill about student drug testing. After delivering our letter to all 435 voting members of the House, Reps. Bobby Scott and Danny Davis (D-IL) circulated their own letter to their colleagues soliciting support for their amendment. Almost immediately thereafter, notorious drug warrior Congressmen Mark Souder (R-IN) and John Peterson (R-PA) responded with their own weak letter opposing the amendment, alleging the efficacy of student drug testing to reduce drug use and the Supreme Court’s “support” for such programs. (Of course, the court’s 2002 decision specifically refused to opine on the public policy wisdom of drug testing.)

Thanks once again to Jenny Janichek from Roosevelt University SSDP for getting Rep. Danny Davis’s support on this. Thanks also to those who e-mailed and called their representatives to ask for their support of the Scott/Davis amendment. We will continue to build on the alliances forged in the process of pushing for this amendment and hope to offer a similar one next year.

Amazing how Souder just keeps popping up like some kind of Energizer bunny extolling the virtues of anything related to prohibition and opposing anything that would actually help people.

An article in the National Post, mostly discussing GW Pharmaceutical’s stock prospects (and it’s poor cash position) concluded with some interesting points about the future of the liquid form of marijuana called Sativex¬.

But Evolution Securities’ Mr. Senior said there are numerous ways to raise funds, including a standard equity fund-raising, convertible debt or a loan from Bayer against future royalties. He said there is a 90% chance Sativex will be approved in the U.K. within 12 months, thus paving the way for European approval.

Approval in the U.S. is still at least three years away, he said, but Health Canada’s decision should put some pressure on American authorities. Sativex will inevitably find its way into the U.S. illegally, which may prompt authorities to explore the issue of medicinal cannabis.

“We continue believe it is a case of ‘when rather than if” Sativex will be approved,” he said.

Fascinating.

It’s nice to see that the Drug Czar is not always getting a free ride when it comes to the crap he calls “data” coming out of his office.
The latest: Representative Tom Davis (R-VA) and Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) have asked the General Accounting Office to double-check the administration’s cocaine-production estimates.
There is so much conflicting data coming out, with the Drug Czar claiming that cocaine production has dropped by 30 percent of the past three years.

But some American counternarcotics officials and drug-trade analysts call such triumphal pronouncements misleading.

A U.S. government task force, they note, estimated that cartels last year produced more than twice the amount of cocaine claimed by the White House. A report released last week by the United Nations maintained that cocaine output is actually on the rise.

The debate over drug numbers matters because Congress uses the White House figures as a measuring stick when determining the best way to spend nearly $1 billion annually in counternarcotics programs in South America. […]
The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy announced in March that cocaine production last year in the three Andean nations totaled 640 metric tons, down from 900 metric tons in 2001.

Touting these numbers at a recent congressional hearing on Colombia Ö which provides 90 percent of the cocaine sold in the United States Ö John Walters, the head of the White House drug office, said: “We are heading in the right direction, and we are winning.”

But the White House figures contradict other tallies and strike some as funny math.
According to the State Department, U.S. and Latin American security forces seized a record 373 metric tons of cocaine last year. Walters’ office thinks annual consumption of the narcotic in the United States alone is about 300 metric tons. Taken together, the two figures exceed the White House estimate of the total produced in 2004.

Speaking on condition of anonymity for security reasons, a U.S. official familiar with anti-drug operations insisted that South America “could easily be producing well over 800 metric tons of cocaine per year.”

(In the Houston Chronicle)
Maybe people will start noticing that there’s a whole lot of funny math coming out of that office.