Drug WarRant

Interesting analysis of the Afghanistan situation by David Bosco at Slate.

Adam wrote and asked me to take on the OpEd in the Washington Post: Cutting Marijuana Use Calls for More Than Tough Policing by Joseph Califano

The increased potency of today’s marijuana and the greater knowledge we have of the dangers of using marijuana justify the increased attention that law enforcement is giving to illegal possession of the drug.

And so it begins. In the first three words he invokes the Big Lie of today’s marijuana prohibitionist: increased potency.
Let me say this simply and clearly. There is absolutely no evidence that increased levels of THC in marijuana have any impact on the smoker other than needing to smoke less pot for the same effect. Oh, they’re all using the lie. Some are more obvious about it than others. But I’m still waiting for a single bit of evidence.
So let’s see what else Joey has to say.

As has been true of tobacco since the 1960s, we’ve learned a lot about the dangers of marijuana since the 1970s.æ The drug adversely affects short-term memory, the ability to concentrate and motor skills.

Uh, Joe. We knew about that back in the 70s. In fact, it was a matter of considerable amusement. The interesting thing is that in the decades since, there’s been no indication that any of this has long-term detrimental effects. This is like saying one of the “dangers” of eating desserts is a short-term sugar rush. Well, duh!

Recent studies indicate that it increases the likelihood of depression, schizophrenia and other serious mental health problems.

Now this is an oversimplification of a complex set of studies with questionable methodology that have, at best, shown a link, not causation. Most of it is explainable through self-medication and other factors. Also, the “serious mental health problems” part is a real joke, since the questionnaire that determined that showed that over 8% of the population had “serious mental health problems.”

Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, has repeatedly expressed concern about the adverse impact of marijuana on the brain, a matter of particular moment for youngsters whose brains are still in the development stage.æ Volkow has stated: “There is no question marijuana can be addictive; that argument is over.æ The most important thing right now is to understand the vulnerability of young, developing brains to these increased concentrations of cannabis.”

Well then, let’s see if Nora Volkow is a reliable source, or just another prohibitionist using the Big Lie. Check this out:

Volkow, here to speak to people working in the drug-addiction field, said many scientists used to believe marijuana was not addictive.

But she said the pot consumed by the Baby Boom generation had much less of the active ingredient THC – which interacts with receptor proteins in the brain that translate pleasure responses – than the types now available.

“It is this chemical that can lead to the addiction,” she said. “When people were taking marijuana in the past, they were consuming a very weak drug.

And we have a winner! Yep, it’s the Big Lie again. Pot is not physically addictive, but it does have the potential for dependency. However, that dependency is weak — much weaker than alcohol, tobacco, or caffeine, and it’s very easy for most people to quit (dependence is often not due to marijuana, but other psychological factors).
Nora Volkow also claimed that drug addiction normally ranges from 20-30 percent of those who use it, yet there have been over 95 million Americans who have used pot and only 3.1 million used it regularly over the past year (just over 3%) — and there’s no evidence that the 3.1 million are addicted.
Back to Califano:

The next question is how to make public policies, including law enforcement approaches, more effective in discouraging marijuana use.æ Availability is the mother of use, so doing a far better job of reducing availability is high on the list.æ Beyond that — and recognizing that reducing demand is key to that goal — we should use the increased arrest rate as an opportunity to discourage use.

Now he’s just delusional. Reducing availability of marijuana? How? Despite 30 years of oppressive laws, there has been no significant reduction at all. And increasing the arrest rate as an “opportunity to discourage use”? What, is he high?
No, but he is an old-fashioned temperance whore. And, as I indicated in the title, he is the King of the Whoppers.
Califano is head of the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA). This is a huge organization with big funding and tons of connections within the Government’s Drug War Community. And when they release a report, they get lots of coverage in the media. But the major media is starting to be gunshy — they’ve been burned so many times. Several times, the New York Times has had to print retractions because of CASA’s intentionally false use of numbers from flawed studies.
CASA is the laughingstock of the scientific community. They reported, for instance, that 25% of alcohol sold was consumed by minors. Patently false – a result of not making elementary adjustments to survey data. When confronted with the evidence, Califano actually defended his organization’s use of bad numbers.
In one case, Califano’s organization actually inflated the numbers by 1,790 percent in order to make their point.
Big Lies. Big Liar.

Marco wrote in to tell me about his experience being one of the chosen. Yes, he was selected to participate in a paid survey — the kind that ends up part of the government’s statistics in the war on drugs. So I think it’s interesting to hear the reactions of someone who went through it.
A couple of highlights:

The marijuana questions were more numerous than the other drugs. Most of the questions dealt with if you used, when you used, when you stopped using, how often you used, etc. It featured questions like:

“How do you feel about occasional marijuana usage by adults?”

1. Strongly Disapprove
2. Disapprove
3. Neither approve nor disapprove

Woah! Where’s number 4 and 5?

As you can tell, there was a definite bias in the questions. Directly after this were questions about your spirituality and belief in God, then your mental health. […]

I got the definite feeling that this survey is going to link sanity and happiness to a persons’ spirituality and drug habits.

Not surprised.

USA Today gave a fairly scathing editorial against our approach to marijuana enforcement, drawing upon the Sentencing Project study. Definitely worth a read. The conclusion?

It’s time for a serious debate on whether massive arrests of low-level users are worth the cost or having any benefit.

And being willing to back up their statement, they offered our Drug Czar a chance to respond. Which he did with this more of the same old response.
Here’s an example:

We are more concerned about marijuana today. Studies long ago established marijuana as a risky substance. For youth, it is the single largest source of abuse and dependency. But compelling new research shows an increased public health threat.

First, marijuana potency has more than doubled within the past 10 years. […]

Note the complete nonsense when you read between the lines. “Risky”? Compared to what? “Single largest source of abuse and dependency”? Well, only if you define abuse as using something that’s against the law, and only if you define dependency as those who get caught and take treatment over jail.
And then note that nice little segue from compelling new research on public health dangers and increased potency. Oh no, he doesn’t come out and say it — he never does. But he’s a master at implying something that absolutely doesn’t exist and has absolutely no support in any studies: the connection between higher potency pot and… anything.
He does this all the time. He’ll say something like “This is not your grandfather’s pot. It’s much more potent, and recent studies have shown that the hole in the ozone layer is growing. That should be cause for alarm.” And people nod sagely and think “Oh, I didn’t realize it, but apparently today’s pot causes holes in the ozone layer.” Nobody questions why the two were put together.
So the one small quibble I have with the USA Today editorial, which was generally excellent, is that they, too, got caught.

Today’s more potent marijuana carries substantial health and social risks. It can lead to depression, thoughts of suicide and schizophrenia, especially among teens, according to government research. Its use should be discouraged.

From today’s Roll Call: Potheads vs. Narcs by Mary Ann Akers

It would have been the zaniest game of the softball season. But it seems the Narcs are too chicken to play a bunch of stoners.

The One Hitters, the softball team of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, claim they’ve been trying to play ball — literally — against the Office of National Drug Control Policy for years. Finally, this year, it looked like the Bush administration’s ONDCP office, also known as the drug czar, was going to come through.

The game was all set for Wednesday, June 8, between the One Hitters and We Czar the Champions. But then the drug czar’s office removed the game from their schedule, saying they couldn’t muster enough players for that particular game. (They did, however, have enough players last week in their game against the Commerce Department.)

The One Hitters tried to reschedule, but the captain of We Czar the Champions said they were “booked through August.”

Now the once-docile potheads are irate.

“Obviously one of the ‘higher ups’ at ONDCP saw the schedule and nixed the game,” NORML’s spokesman, Nick Thimmesch, told HOH. “Perhaps they were spooked by the notion of BYOB — bring your own bong!”

Kris Krane, NORML’s associate director and co-captain of the One Hitters, said: “For years the ONDCP has been unwilling to engage drug policy reformers in a serious debate on the issues. Now they even refuse to engage us in a friendly game of softball.”

Of course, there’s another good reason for their refusal. They ONDCP can’t have liked the odds. It’s a no-win situation for them. They’re playing Potheads! And if they lost?

Tom Riley, a spokesman for the drug czar’s office, said there was “no grand policy formulation” to dodge playing the One Hitters. He said the stoners couldn’t possibly have tried to play We Czar the Champions for years, because the team is brand new.

“This just goes to show the effects of marijuana use on judgment and reasoning,” Riley joked.

At first he toed the party line and blamed his team’s decision not to play the One Hitters on a dearth of players. But then he thought better of it and decided it was a policy decision after all.

“I wouldn’t think we would play any team that promotes drug use,” Riley said, adding, “that includes teams that promote smoking meth or smoking crack.”

Ah, it looks like there was a winner after all. The Potheads came off gracious and fun. As far as the Narcs… well let’s just call Riley the douchebag of the day — was there a need to add “meth or crack” in the same category as marijuana once again?

Regarding my post yesterday about Hugh O’Shaughnessy’s article claiming that Condoleezza Rice had announced that the U.S. was “abandoning” Plan Colombia…
I just talked with a spokesman for the State Department and he says that is incorrect, and that he does not know where O’Shaughnessy got his story.
The State Department spokesman said there are no plans to abandon Plan Colombia, and while the original plan expires this year, they are working with Congress for additional funding to keep it going.
This fits in with all the other information I had heard. I don’t expect the administration to back off on Plan Colombia. But given the amount of negative press, there’s a chance that Congress will be harder to persuade this time.

Want to read a great take-down of the DEA’s Karen Tandy?
Radley Balko’s got it.

Let’s recycle some speculation. It’s fun, and helps pass the 14,515,200 seconds that have slipped by while waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on Raich (that’s 168 days for the rest of you).
Larry wrote today and asked

“Kennedy wrote the wine case decision. Is that good news for Raich?”

Larry was referring back to my May 3 post, where I linked to speculation by Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog regarding the authorship of the remaining cases:

Three Justices have not published majority opinions from the December sitting and therefore are presumably the authors of three of the four remaining cases: Stevens, Kennedy, and Souter. […]

Stevens, Kennedy, and Souter were among the most active Justices at all four arguments. Each of them has expertise or recent experience with the issues in more than one of the cases. […]

[Kennedy] is a likely author for Raich if, as most people assume, the government is going to win, because in the predecessor Oakland Cannabis case Justice Stevens wrote and Justice Souter joined an opinion expressing some sympathy for medical marijuana use.

So now we know that Kennedy wrote the decision on the wine case that was released today, so… it’s possible to speculate that Souter or Stevens may be writing the majority opinion in Raich. If so… it’s hard not to think back on the concurrance in US v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Collective, written by Stevens and joined by Souter and Ginsburg:

Most notably, whether the defense might be available to a seriously ill patient for whom there is no alternative means of avoiding starvation or extraordinary suffering is a difficult issue that is not presented here. […]

The overbroad language of the Court’s opinion is especially unfortunate given the importance of showing respect for the sovereign States that comprise our Federal Union. That respect imposes a duty on federal courts, whenever possible, to avoid or minimize conflict between federal and state law, particularly in situations in which the citizens of a State have chosen to “serve as a laboratory” in the trial of “novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U. S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). In my view, this is such a case. By passing Proposition 215, California voters have decided that seriously ill patients and their primary caregivers should be exempt from prosecution under state laws for cultivating and possessing marijuana if the patient’s physician recommends using the drug for treatment.

Sounds potentially promising.
The only other remaining cases from the December sitting:

• Miller-El v. Dretke on Batson and race-based preemptory challenges
• Veneman v. Livestock Marketing Ass’n (and 1 other consolidated case) on commodity promotion programs and the government speech doctrine.

I’m sticking with my prediction given on my Raich page: Unanimous decision for Raich (OK, what I really said was 8-0 because at the time, I thought the Chief might be out). I’m sticking with it partly to be ornery (I gave it, perhaps overly optimistically, but I’m not giving in to peer pressure), and partly to be able to stick it to everybody else if it actually went that way.
Note: Some people have asked me how I know when the next possible date is that there could be a decision. Simple. It’s on the Supreme Court Calendar (pdf)
Next possible dates: Monday, May 23; Tuesday, May 31; Monday, June 6; Monday, June 13; Monday, Jun 20; Monday, June 27.
Update: Tom Goldstein reminds me in comments that if the Justices run out of dates in June and haven’t finished all their opinions, they’ll add more dates on the fly.
Further Update: Tom revises his authorship speculation. Could the Chief be writing?

This just in from Hugh O’Shaughnessy in The Independent:

Washington’s “war on drugs” in Colombia is collapsing in chaos and corruption, and the drug producers are winning. The so-called Plan Colombia, which has cost the US more than $3bn (£1.6bn) in the past five years, is being abandoned, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has announced.

I don’t have any other confirmation. If this is true, it’s huge!

Update: I’m taking this one very cautiously. Several other international papers have picked this up, but only as a reprint of the O’Shaughnessy article. Nothing on the State Department press site, and as of Thursday, Rice was still talking about asking for more money for the Andean drug initiative.

Still no Raich v. Ashcroft decision (next opportunity is next Monday). However, the Justices did rule on the other commerce clause case (although it’s the Dormant Commerce Clause) in a 5-4 decision stating that states could not prevent out-of-state wineries from shipping directly to customers in their state.
It’s really hard to say whether you can read anything from that into the coming Raich decision.