Drug WarRant

Daksya has a diary entry over at Nephalim’s Drug War Revealed asking whether people think drug use would increase a little, a lot, or none under legalization.
Go give your opinion.

The Marijuana Policy Project reports that they will hold a telephone press conference today at noon to discuss “developments in the effort to overcome Drug Enforcement Administration obstruction of medical marijuana research.”
Participating:

Lyle Craker, Ph.D., director, medicinal plant program, University of Massachusetts Amherst; Rick Doblin, Ph.D., president, Multidisciplinary Institute for Psychedelic Studies; Allen Hopper, staff attorney, ACLU; Steve Fox, director of government relations, Marijuana Policy Project; Phillip Alden, patient living with AIDS who dropped out of a medical marijuana study due to the low quality of government-grown marijuana that researchers are forced to use.

And more on this in the Washington Times: ACLU enters marijuana research dispute

The ACLU said it filed a statement with a federal administrative law judge opposing the DEA’s refusal to allow University of Massachusetts Professor Lyle Craker to grow the alternative source of research-grade marijuana. …

The ACLU said it will host a conference Monday on “the federal government’s pattern and practice of blocking scientists from conducting research on the medical benefits of marijuana, and how this obstruction of research affects the current legal debate over medical marijuana, particularly in the U.S. Supreme Court in Raich v. Ashcroft.”

[Looks like some more pro-pot organizers who don’t give a rat’s ass about patients — right, Mark?]

I just noticed Mark Kleiman’s post about Sativex.
He does a fairly good job of summarizing the situation, and talks about how the advent of Sativex may affect the framing of the debate on both sides of the medical marijuana issue. So far, OK, (although I don’t agree with him that, for political reasons, “the pro-drug side — apart from Rick Doblin’s MAPS — has [been] denying the need for research.” That’s a crass over-simplification. The pro-drug side has, in fact, asserted that there is sufficient research already to allow for medical marijuana use and re-scheduling. We simply are not going to bend over and let the government continue to assert a requirement for more research as a delaying tactic, while blocking research at the same time. We would welcome more legitimate research.)
After Mark explained the mechanisms that are behind the way the two sides are framing the debate, he ends up his post with this extraordinarily offensive comment:

If you guessed from the above that neither side of the drug-policy debate actually gives a rat’s ass about sick people, you’re a remarkably good guesser.

Now I often consider Kleiman to be an intelligent fellow, so I don’t think this remark is the result of abject stupidity. I’m hoping it was ill-considered, glib rhetoric — you know, to give the end of the post some kind of personal pizazz. Either that, or it was an attempt to maintain his “cred” as a “balanced” expert, so he could continue to get lucrative gigs in that area (in which case, if you guessed that he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the truth, you’d be a remarkably good guesser.)
Let me lay it out clearly, in case Mark’s actually stupid.
Pro-pot side
The (as he calls it) “pro-pot” position is that marijuana should be legal. We recognize (and fully admit) that acceptance of medical marijuana will help legalization, so we frame our debate in that way. The mere fact that we frame our debate does not mean that we don’t care about medical marijuana patients — our goals follow the same path.
There may be some individuals in the pro-pot community that don’t care about sick people, but that can’t be determined by our position on marijuana. Personally, even if marijuana was somehow not an interesting or useful recreational substance, I would be fully behind stopping the indefensible government interference with medical treatment.
If those on the pro-pot side didn’t care about sick people to further our goals, there might be other things that we’d do. For example, we might try to get Marinol taken off the market somehow, in the hopes that having one less medicine available would increase the pressure on legalizing medical marijuana. Or, in fact, we’d discourage the development of Sativex. Mark, oddly, calls our support of Sativex part of an inconsistent set of positions, but it’s actually proof that, while Sativex makes our overall message in some ways more complex, we desire its approval for medical marijuana patients.
I get tired of being told that because I support legalization, I don’t really care about sick people. It’s false and offensive. It’s also logically an improper construction. Imagine your wife has come down with an illness. She has a job offer that she must accept by next month (with a huge increase in pay), but she can only do so if she’s well. If you hope that she gets well quickly and is able to take that job, does that mean that you don’t give a rat’s ass about her health?
The drug warrior side
Now the drug warrior part of Mark’s statement is indisputable. The drug warriors have also known that acceptance of medical marijuana will help legalization, so they have resisted medical marijuana (beyond that of any other controlled substance) by restricting research, demonizing and lying about medical marijuana, lobbying against medical marijuana laws, and so forth. They have actively used taxpayer’s dollars to prevent sick people from using medicine. They have caused people’s deaths. They have sent armed federal agents to arrest sick people and yank up their medicine.
To put me in the same category with these monsters is offensive, and I hope Mark A.R. Kleiman will have the courtesy to apologize.
Update:

Edit: Section referencing correspondence, and my responses, removed by request.

Thanks for all the notes and responses recently regarding a whole lot going on in the world of drug policy.
On a personal note, the last couple of days have been extremely busy for me (in good ways), so I apologize to anyone who has written if I haven’t gotten around to responding.
I just opened a production today of Stephen Sondheim’s Passion at Illinois State University (I’m most of the orchestra — piano/conductor — for a small student production). If you’re in the area, two more performances will be held tomorrow (Saturday, April 23 at 2:00 pm and 6:00 pm) in Allen Theatre (admission is free). I’ve been in rehearsal four hours a night, six nights a week in addition to work.
I’m also faculty advisor for a student group that’s currently holding a four-square marathon (yes, four-square) for student scholarships, which is now in its 38th hour, so sleep is something I don’t quite remember.
I’m going to keep a close eye on the big news — including Raich (next possible decision dates are Tuesday and Wednesday — April 26/27). But I may miss some of the smaller stories over the next few days.

OK, so Health and Human Services finally responded to the Americans for Safe Access Data Quality Act complaint regarding their information about medical marijuana (background).
After several self-awarded extensions to their response, they essentially came up with a complete non-response response.
Shorter version: We found a loophole that allows us, instead of actually responding as required by law in a timely manner, to provide input into another process that has almost no time limit, so we can delay telling the truth indefinitely.
Here’s the critical part of their response:

Both the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the HHS Information Quality Guidelines provide that federal government agencies may use existing processes that are in place t address correction requests from the Public. In the case of marijuana HHS currently is in the process of conducting a review in response to the petition for change that was submitted to DEA in October 2002 by the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis (CRC), an association of public-interest groups and medical cannabis patients that includes the ASA. [2] In the course of the review, HHS will evaluate an the publicly available peer reviewed literature on the efficacy of marijuana [punctuation and spelling errors in original]

What a load of crap. It’s because the re-scheduling process has historically gone for years and years of delays that we hoped the Data Quality Act would give us some ammunition, with its specific requirement of 60 day response time. Now they’re completely folding their (unspecified) response into the interminal delays of re-scheduling.
Now we have to see if ASA will appeal the “response.”

Former Deputy Drug Czar Andrea Barthwell (more about her here) is, as has been mentioned, the new spokesperson for getting GW Pharmaceuticals’ Sativex approved for use in the United States.
This is SO right for so many wrong reasons.

Drug Cops Seek to Use Monkey in Enforcement Efforts
at TalkLeft

One of the things prohibitionists love to go on about is protecting our youth. And how do they want to do it? By taking away the rights of young people (pee in a cup, get sniffed by dogs) and by passing harsh criminal penalties for drug crimes near schools and parks, etc.
None of these methods are very effective, and none even come close to paying off in value compared to the negative effects they have on society.
On the other hand, we have a system that is far from perfect, but could be useful for reducing youth marijuana use — it’s called regulated sale with age restrictions (used for products like alcohol and tobacco). It’s likely to be more effective than the methods we use now, without the negative effects.
But there’s one other point that people don’t talk about much.
Travis is a regular reader of Drug WarRant. He’s 17, and he wrote to tell me about a conversation he had recently with some of his friends of the same age.
One of them said:

“Yeah, but if they were to legalize it, it wouldn’t even be fun anymore. It wouldn’t even be worth doing.”

Taking away the lure of the forbidden.
There’s a whole lot of truth here. Kris Millegan recently noted:

Once a substance is banned and enters a black market, the age of the users goes down, the volume of abuse goes up, and civil and criminal corruption rises.

Part of that shift in the age of users is due to black market sellers targeting that group, but also part of it is the allure. And when you remove it from the black market, the reverse happens.
In the Netherlands, where you can legally buy marijuana at the local coffee shop, teen marijuana use rates have been lower than in the United States. I’ve read numerous stories of travelers and locals (including law enforcement officers) saying that since it’s legal, it’s perceived by young people as not being as “cool.”
That doesn’t mean that people don’t use it, but that there’s less of a reason for young people to join in.
Recently in The Guardian, Zoe Williams wrote about the changes in classification for marijuana in Britain:

Since it was reclassified from class B to class C at the beginning of last year, cannabis has lost its lustre, especially for the young. …

It has made everyone lose interest. You might just as well have dressed this drug up in a sailor suit and sent it on tour with Geri Halliwell. It just isn’t cool anymore.

Legalize it. You know — for the kids.

I’ve been holding off talking about GW Pharmaceuticals’ Sativex, but now I think Rob Kampia has written an excellent article – at Alternet – The Lesson of Sativex.

On April 19, the Canadian government delivered what should be the final blow to the U.S. government’s irrational prohibition against the medical use of marijuana. It approved prescription sale of a natural marijuana extract — for all practical purposes, liquid marijuana — to treat pain and other symptoms caused by multiple sclerosis. …

In short, the Canadian government has just certified that virtually everything our own government has been telling us about marijuana is wrong. In defiance of a large and growing pile of scientific studies, our government still claims that marijuana has no medical value. White House Drug Czar John Walters even compared medical marijuana to “medicinal crack.” …

Make no mistake: Sativex is liquid marijuana. It is nothing like Marinol, the synthetic THC pill sold in the U.S. and sometimes falsely touted as an adequate substitute for marijuana.

Sativex is a whole-plant extract, containing the rich variety of naturally occurring compounds called cannabinoids that are unique to marijuana. It also contains trace elements of other compounds contained in the plant, which scientists believe contribute to its therapeutic value. …

Now if Sativex makes it here, I haven’t been sure what that would mean. Would this be further reason for the government to say that medical marijuana (the plant we use now) is unnecessary because Sativex is available?
Rob addresses that question, too.

Sativex is to marijuana as a cup of coffee is to coffee beans. If Sativex is safe and effective, marijuana is safe and effective. And Sativex is safe and effective. Studies have shown significant effect against pain and other symptoms caused by multiple sclerosis and other debilitating conditions. Over 600 patient-years of research have established a remarkable record of safety. …

And even if Sativex is approved here someday, it won’t be the answer for every patient now benefiting from medical marijuana. For one thing, it has been clearly shown that different strains of marijuana — with different blends of cannabinoids — work better for some conditions and less well for others. Sativex just comes in one formula, and it won’t be right for everyone.

And Sativex will be expensive. Will we force patients to buy a pricey pharmaceutical version of a plant they could grow themselves for pennies? At a time when our health care system is drowning in rising costs, that’s insane. We could end up with a policy every bit as silly as telling coffee drinkers that they can buy a cappuccino, but they’ll be arrested on sight if caught in possession of coffee beans.

Of course, our government isn’t one to avoid a policy just because it’s silly.
It’s going to be interesting.

TChris at TalkLeft has two good posts about cases that the Supreme Court agreed to hear today.

1. Religion v. Drug Laws – about Hoasca Tea (used in ceremonies of the O Centro Espirita Beneficients Uniao Do Vegetal church). It has some impact on the Controlled Substances Act. Note: SCOTUS Blog has some excellent background on the Hoasca Tea case.
2. Supreme Court Tackles Consent to Search Issue. If you refuse consent to search your apartment, but your roommate agrees?