Drug WarRant

Check out Bob Merkin’s post at Vleeptron — particularly the last half: “Do cannabis withdrawals need drug therapy? Controlled trial from America.”

CASE STUDY: Cannabis Withdrawal in Adult Caucasian Male

PUBLICATION: The Journal of Non-Peer-Reviewed Politicized Irreproducable Junk Science

EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY: Subject ran out and couldn’t get any for a couple of weeks.

CLINICAL OBSERVATIONS: Subject was observed to be grouchy, and vocalized using vocabulary acquired during prior enlisted military service. Subject reported loss of desire to play scratchy old Jimi Hendrix and Traffic vinyl. Noticeable loss of appetite for Reeses Peanut Butter Cups, Necco Skybars and “Dagwood” sandwiches.

Via Hit and Run, Mr. Sun has a delightfully humorous post about DEA’s publication Drugs of Abuse.

US mercenaries spill blood over Afghan opium in today’s Independent (UK) [thanks, Sanho].

Hundreds of Afghan eradicators under the command of American private security contractors were going to head into the fields around the town and destroy the beautiful red and white blooms days before they could be harvested for their narcotic sap.

But instead of the peaceful, model operation that was promised as an example to demonstrate the Kabul government’s serious intentions, Maiwand and its surrounding villages exploded into violence in what could be a foretaste of resistance to Western-backed efforts to bring Afghanistan’s opium industry under control.

By the end of yesterday four government soldiers had been wounded by gunfire from farmers, American security contractors were said to be sheltering behind razor wire in a protected camp, and Afghan police and counter-narcotics forces had fought fierce battles which local people said left five dead. Plans to eradicate poppies were temporarily shelved in the area as political bigwigs shuttled to and fro trying to ease tensions and broker some kind of deal with the angry opium farmers.

Dense clouds of black smoke hung over the town from burning barricades, hundreds of shots rang out from gun battles, and American helicopter gunships flew low overhead. …

Maiwan was being targeted first for eradication because it was regarded as a relatively peaceful area with effective government control. The hard cases have yet to be tackled. …

“The farmers are angry with the Americans and the Kabul government,” said Ahmed Weil. “It is only the fields of the poor that are being destroyed, not the fields of the rich.” Afghans complain that wealthy warlords keep their stockpiles of opium while poor farmers are stopped from growing the crop or have their fields cut down.

Sigh.
Is there nobody in government who understands basic economics? Supply and demand? And what did you think would happen when you come in as foreigners and destroy the only livelihood that exists for poor farmers? What do you expect them to do? Get a job at McDonald’s?
Note: a separate article notes that the provincial governor is trying to make a “voluntary” program work (in what is one of the more bizarre uses of the word “volunary”)

Mashal said that if the farmers did not volunteer for eradication the police would resume the operation.

Welcome Compassionate Coalition Bulletin Board — a place for anyone to discuss medical marijuana. They’ve got quite a variety of discussion topics, including discussion folders for each state.

The Drug Czar’s got a new set of advertisements coming out. According to his release:

The Office of National Drug Control
Policy’s (ONDCP) National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign today launches a new
advertising campaign to provide scientific facts about marijuana risks and
harms for parents of teens. Themed “Facts for Parents,” the print ad campaign
underscores the potency and carcinogenic content of marijuana and outlines
short- and long-term consequences of marijuana use on adolescent brain
development and learning. Starting today, the ads are running in The New York
Times, USA Today, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. During the
course of the next four months, they will also appear in Newsweek,
BusinessWeek, Time and Smithsonian magazines.

“Scientific facts.” Spare me.
Check their new ads yourself.
An example:

Reliable evidence shows that marijjuana today is more than twice as powerful on average as it was 20 years ago. It contains twice the concentration of THC, the chemical that affects the brain. Pot can turn your hopes and dreams for your kids into a nightmare of lost opportunities.

Reliable evidence shows that gin has more than twice as much alcohol as beer Which is why you don’t drink gin by the case.
Notice how they word the ad? They don’t come out and specifically claim that higher THC pot will cause a nightmare, but they make the reader infer it.
Check out this next one.

Quite a few people think that smoking pot is less likely to cause cancer than a regular cigarette. You may have even heard some parents say they’d rather their kids smoked a little pot than get hooked on cigarettes.

Wrong, and wrong again.

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, one joint can deliver four times as much cancer causing tar as one cigarette.

Again, notice what they did? They didn’t say that marijuana causes cancer (there’s no evidence that it does). They simply said it can deliver “cancer causing tar” — but not that tar from marijuana cigarettes alone, in the amounts that most people consume it, adds anything to your chances of getting cancer. And they ignore the fact that people smoke much less pot than cigarettes (particularly if it’s more potent!) and it’s not addictive, so they tend to quit (unlike cigarettes).
But the ONDCP cares so little for life, that they’re willing to blatantly advise parents that it’s better that their kid get hooked on cigarettes than smoke a joint!
It’s particularly disturbing to see this now — with tax day approaching — knowing that I’m paying for it.

I’ve been negligent in reporting that a medical marijuana bill is quietly working its way through the legislature of — yes that’s right — Alabama.
I admire the persistence of some pretty incredible drug policy reformers in Alabama (Loretta Nall is one of the most notable, but there are others as well). The medical marijuana effort in Alabama is starting to gain some publicity, and although few think it will succeed, the effort is getting a positive message out there.
Alabama has a history of being fairly proud of its harsh marijuana laws and enforcement. Interestingly, Alabama was one of several states to provide supporting statements in the Raich v. Ashcroft case — not because they believed in medical marijuana, but rather because they believed in states’ rights enough to support the philosophical concept despite their clear opposition to medical marijuana.
Here are some excerpts from the Amicus Brief of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana:

Alabama, has apparently earned something of a reputation for its zeal in prosecuting and punishing drug crimes. See E. Nadelmann, An End to Marijuana Prohibition, National Review, p.28 (July 12, 2004) (“Alabama currently locks up people convicted three times of marijuana possession for 15 years to life.”). It is not a reputation of which Alabama is embarrassed or ashamed. On the contrary, Alabama’s Attorney General has every intention of continuing to prosecute drug crimes to the fullest extent of the law. …

Under Alabama law, as under the U.S. Code, marijuana is a “Schedule I” drug, meaning it has a “high potential for abuse” and has “no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or lacks accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision,”

Respondents’ conduct — cultivating and possessing marijuana for personal consumption — would thus plainly be criminal in the State of Alabama. Notably for present purposes, Alabama courts have — again, at the Attorney General’s urging — expressly refused to recognize “‘medical necessity’ as a valid defense in a prosecution for the unlawful possession of marijuana.”

Good luck, Alabama. Always keeping it interesting.

An article in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette (Representative Mark Souder’s hometown paper) takes the drug warrior to task:

Over the past six years, most major education, addiction recovery, civil rights and student organizations have said that Souder’s law is a bad idea. Some of the more than 180 organizations that have risen in opposition to Souder’s HEA drug provision are the National Education Association, the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, the Association for Addiction Professionals, the NAACP and the United States Student Association.

In response to this growing outrage, Souder has backtracked, saying that his own law should be scaled back and calling its current enforcement “Draconian.” He claims he meant for the law to apply only to students who get convicted while they’re attending college, but that the Department of Education is misinterpreting the law by also denying aid to students with convictions in the past.

But blaming his own mistakes on others doesn’t help the victims of his fundamentally flawed law. …

Souder has been talking about changing his law for several years but hasn’t done anything to make it happen. This shows that while he’s more than happy to talk the talk, he doesn’t care enough about the victims of his law to truly walk the walk. …

It’s time for Rep. Souder to come clean and admit that writing the HEA drug provision was a horrible mistake. His new proposal is simply a diversion meant to fool voters into thinking he cares about students. Thousands of young people like me continue to be unnecessarily hurt by Souder’s wrongheaded law every year, and his new proposal won’t help many of them.

Thanks to the always helpful Tom Angell and Students for a Sensible Drug Policy. This organization, with chapters all over the country, has been doing incredible work in raising awareness of the horrible HEA financial aid provision. With their work, and the support they’ve generated in Congress, the act may finally be repealed.
If you haven’t yet raised your voice about the HEA drug act, do so now.

For those who are not aware of the significance/importance of the Data Quality Act complaint I mentioned in the previous post, I thought I’d explain a bit.
One of the most critical ways to loosen the federal death grip on marijuana is through re-scheduling. Marijuana is currently under Schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act:

SCHEDULE I

1. The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
2. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
3. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Of course, Health and Human Services (HHS) has consistently denied, in their official materials, that marijuana has currently accepted medical use (despite all evidence). If they were to acknowledge accepted medical use, then the government would have a very hard time denying a petition to re-schedule marijuana. (And if marijuana was re-scheduled, then the feds would be unable to prevent medical marijuana programs.)
The Data Quality Act complaint is forcing HHS to defend its materials in light of a list of scientific data a mile long showing accepted medical use of marijuana.
So, HHS has no option but to deny the complaint. But how?
I’ve been giving this some thought and have come up with some possibilities:

1. Begging the Question: HHS declares that illegal activity cannot, by definition, be considered currently accepted medical use. Since marijuana is illegal, there is no accepted medical use, which therefore supports keeping it illegal. This kind of circular reasoning is right up the government’s alley. However, this seems unlikely. They’ve got to know that it could eventually end up in court and a judge would find it laughable.
2. The “But you don’t have a double-blind, 20-year, multiple inhibitor 27R-stroke-J study” Response: Since it would be a huge task for HHS to repudiate each of the various scientific and medical studies mentioned in the complaint, they simply determine that a particular kind of study is the only valid way to judge accepted medical use and accepted safety. This would be a study that doesn’t exist for marijuana, primarly because HHS and DEA have not allowed it. The problem with this for HHS is that there could well be other drugs that have also not had such a specific study done (and that aren’t in Schedule 1). If so, that could be additional grounds for an appeal.
3. The Impossible Standard Response Again, HHS doesn’t bother responding to the various studies, but uses something specific to marijuana and claims that it hasn’t been shown to have currently accepted medical use. For example, they say that since marijuana is made up of hundreds of compounds, that it can’t have accepted medical use unless it’s proven for each of those compounds separately and independently. This would be an unresponsive answer to the complaint, however, since the complaint requires them to acknowledge or refute the information that’s out there. This wouldn’t stop HHS from using this approach, but it would hurt them eventually in the courts.

It’s also possible that HHS may use a combination of approaches above. Regardless of what happens, they will be forced to eventually say something official that can be used against them in court.
What’s your wager? What response do you think HHS will use? One of the above, or something different?

I’ve been reporting for some time about the efforts by Americans for Safe Access to use a new law called the Data Quality Act to force Health and Human Services to stop spreading false info about medical marijuana (a step which could, theoretically, assist long-term efforts to re-schedule medical marijuana). (Background post — Actual Petition(pdf) )
At the time, I was excited about this, because the law requires that the agency respond in 60 days. (What I did not realize at the time was that the law also allows the agency to grant itself extensions.)
The original complaint was filed on October 6, 2004.
On December 1, HHS responded (in part)

We have not yet completed our response to your complaint because of other agency priorities and the need to coordinate agency review of the response. We hop to provide you with a response within 60 days from the date of this letter.

On February 2, 2005, HHS responded (in part):

Your October 4, 2004, request for correction of information disseminated by the Department of Health and Human Services regarding the medical use of marijuana is still under review. While the goal of the Food and Drug Administration is to respond within 60 days to such requests, we are unable to do so in this case. We anticipate that a response will be forwarded to you by April 1, 2005.

Now, last week, HHS responded (in part):

We wrote to you on February 2, 2005, indicating that we would need additional time to complete our response to your request and expected to reply by April 1, 2005. At this time we are continuing to prepare our response but require additional time to coordinate Agency review. We anticipate that a response will be forwarded to you by April 15, 2005.

Could it be that a real response is actually coming? Of course, they’ve now had six months to try to justify their lies. And if we don’t like their response? Well then Americans for Safe Access will have 30 days to submit an appeal… to Health and Human Services!
(As frustrating as all this appears, we need to keep working every angle. The press, the public, the legislators, the agencies, the courts. Baby steps… baby steps.)

Here are a couple of good articles via Cannabis News:
“bullet” Prohibition on Marijuana Does More Harm Than Good by Kris Millegan in the Register-Guard (OR) is a good response to an earlier article by prohibitionists. Millegan also provides us with a great line:

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.

Exactly right.
“bullet” Decriminalization: A Growing Debate by John Koziol in the Laconia, NH Citizen caught my attention when it started:

Even though it’s a political hot potato, civil libertarians and several lawmakers say Granite Staters should have a discussion about illegal substances, including the possibility of decriminalizing at least one of them: marijuana.

That one paragraph says so much about part of the problem we face as drug policy reformers. We even have to work to convince people to have a discussion about the topic.
That said, this article actually has a large number of intelligent, reform statements by politicians! (How did that happen?)

[State Rep. David A. Welch, R-Kingston] agrees that the legal drugs — alcohol and tobacco — appear to cause more harm than the illegal ones. …

Speaking of the federal initiative to curb the influx and use of illegal substances, “I don’t believe the war on drugs has been effective, said Welch. “It certainly hasn’t been cost-effective, and it certainly isn’t working.

“I think we need to take a harder look at it at the national level,” he added. …

“Arresting people doesn’t work,” said Welch. …

State Rep. Tim Robertson, D-Keene, whom Welch called the “conscience of our committee” and who was the primary sponsor of HB197, said that, if drugs were legal, people would not be dying of heroin overdoses in New Hampshire. …
But Robertson is not out to decriminalize all drugs, just one.

“If we legalized marijuana, we would find that it wasn’t the death knell for society in the way that the anti-marijuana people say. The whole drug war is quite similar to prohibition, which we gave up on.” …

“I stand on principle,” said Robertson. “I hate hypocrites and I try not to be one.”

The war on drugs, he said, is “creating a whole number of people who’ve been convicted and served time for not a very good reason” — possession or use of marijuana.

“With marijuana, you usually don’t do violent things, you usually don’t drive, get into a fight. It’s my understanding — I have had a puff once in my life but I’m much too old to have been in the habit — that you get hungry and you might get romantic but apart from that you keep your moral base. It doesn’t attack the same parts of your brain that alcohol does.”

Robertson said the federal government is conflicted about marijuana because it can not figure out a way to regulate it, and, ultimately, to tax it.

“It’s very difficult to tax or make money selling a weed. Marijuana will grow anywhere. The average user probably could grow all they need in a window box or in their closet and a lot of them do. It’s tough to tax something that you can go down the street and pick up in an empty lot. The average marijuana user is smoking 3-4 joints per week and it’s not like cigarettes. It’s not addictive and if the price got too high you could stop.”

Good article. Lots of good quotes in it besides the ones I included here.