Drug WarRant

Yes, this goes beyond hyperbole. It’s a coordinated campaign to purposely cause the deaths of potentially millions of innocent people. Let’s take a look.
“bullet” On February 16, Mark Souder held a circus of a hearing: “Harm Reduction or Harm Maintenance: Is There Such a Thing as Safe Drug Use?” (See the report in the Drug War Chronicle.) It was a blatant attempt to put harm reduction in a negative light, including testimony by Drug War Dealers Andrea Barthwell and Peter Bensinger.
“bullet” On February 28, John Walters (according to his “blog” – no permalink, you have to scroll down to March 1) began a “five-nation visit to Europe to discuss combating so-called ‘harm reduction’ policies.”
“bullet” Today, Walters appeared at the annual session of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crimes and lied at least twice (based on this Reuters report:

1. He said “that the majority of the international community opposed injection rooms and similar narcotics ‘appeasement’ programs.” and
2. “He rejected the idea that opposition to such programs is ‘somehow an impediment to efforts addressing another global crisis, the spread of HIV/AIDS and other blood-borne pathogens such as Hepatitis C.'”

You see, the U.S. administration has been (since November) pushing for the U.N. to remove all references to harm reduction (including needle exchange) from its literature, and the U.N. has been rolling over and complying. (This administration loves the U.N. when it comes to international drug policy.)
The comment about “appeasement” programs (Walters’ way of attempting to tarnish needle exchange) being opposed by the international community was shown to be a lie with this letter from a group of AIDS organizations, human rights groups, scientific researchers and policy analysts from 56 countries last week.
As far as the rest of it, well we need only take a look at an attempt by the Administration to sneak lies into the Washington Post.
“bullet” Check out this editorial — Deadly Ignorance — in the Washington Post just before Walters’ trip:

THE BUSH administration is quietly extending a policy that undermines the global battle against AIDS. It is being pushed in this direction by Congress, notably by Rep. Mark Edward Souder (R-Ind.). But some administration officials zealously defend this policy error, claiming scientific evidence that doesn’t exist.

The administration’s error is to oppose the distribution of uncontaminated needles to drug addicts. A large body of scientific evidence suggests that the free provision of clean needles curbs the spread of AIDS among drug users without increasing rates of addiction. Given that addicts are at the center of many of the AIDS epidemics in Eastern Europe and Asia, ignoring this science could cost millions of lives. In Russia, as of 2004, 80 percent of all HIV cases involved drug injectors, and many of these infections occurred because addicts share contaminated needles. In Malaysia, China, Vietnam and Ukraine, drug injectors also account for more than half of all HIV cases. Once a critical mass of drug users carries the virus, the epidemic spreads via unprotected sex to non-drug users.

The administration claims that the evidence for the effectiveness of needle exchange is shaky. An official who requested anonymity directed us to a number of researchers who have allegedly cast doubt on the pro-exchange consensus. …

The only problem is when the Post dug into it and contacted the researchers, it turns out that all of the studies that were legitimate actually supported needle exchange. (Read the whole editorial for details.)
The administration was purposely lying about studies in order to push for reduced access to clean needles world-wide, thereby sentencing millions of innocent individuals to death (beyond the IV drug users themselves as the epidemic spreads) in order to promote their unworkable abstinence-only agenda.

Two situations involving the death of officers, in two different countries, are causing some lively discussion on the net right now.
1. Alberta, Canada.
I reported earlier about the four RMCP officers killed by a suicidal maniac who may have been growing marijuana among his other problems. Naturally, the immediate knee-jerk response by many politicians was to call for harsher penalties for marijuana grow-ops. Fortunately, others have shown some smarts.
Check out this article from the Toronto Star (archived at Cannabis News, along with discussion).

“The whole reason grow ops exist is because of prohibition,” [Lawyer Eugene] Oscapella said yesterday.

“This is very simple economics and it’s really appalling that the governments, not just this but the past governments, profess to have such a sophisticated understanding of economics but can’t seem to grasp the fact that they’ve created this incredibly powerful, lucrative and violent black market in Canada.” …

Jack Cole, a former undercover narcotics agent from New Jersey, who now heads the pro-legalization Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), agrees the Alberta tragedy is likely a direct result of laws that make marijuana’s growth and use illegal.

“And creating rigid laws with stiffer penalties because of this situation is a knee-jerk thing that policy makers (will likely) do because they don’t seem to know anything else,” says Cole, “But when they do that it will only make things worse… the harsher the penalties, the more likely it is that (more) officers will be killed.”

Cole, who worked 14 years undercover with the New Jersey State Police, says his country’s 35-year-old war on drugs and its 1920s alcohol prohibition experience show restrictive policies make the use of banned substances more pervasive and their distribution more lethal.

There’s a very extensive discussion below that article that shows this kind of issue can cause some real heat.
2. Columbia, Missouri, USA.
Voters in November passed an ordinance that reduces the penalty for simple possession of small amounts of marijuana to a fine. This has been unpopular with some idiotic legislators as well as some law enforcement groups.
Officer Sterling Infield, President of Columbia Police Officers Association (CPOA) wrote a letter asking city officials to “squash this tainted ordinance.” In this letter, he referred to two officers who had been shot in the line of duty — Officer Curtis Brown and the late Officer Molly Bowden — saying “To stop this ordinance would bring a small degree of justice back to” Bowden and Brown, “who risked all to protect their community.”
Now the officers were shot by someone who had marijuana charges (among others), but the change in the ordinance would not have had any affect, which Infield later admitted. Now most of Columbia’s police force has been properly following the new ordinance, but Infield’s letter has generated some controversy, especially since he posted it at an open forum on the CPOA site (see “Letter to Assist City Administrator” for text of the original letter and check out some of the other folders for some spirited debate).
In both of these cases, while charges of using the deaths of officers for political gain has been bandied about in both directions, it was prohibitionists who first sought to exploit. And what makes that particularly hard to stomach is the fact that their case hold no merit whatsoever. It can be clearly shown time and time again that tougher prohibition makes it more likely that cops will be killed in the line of duty, not less likely.
Drug WarRant supports law enforcement officers, particularly the vast majority who believe in their oath to serve and protect all citizens. When I rant against law enforcement officers, it is those who are vicious and corrupt or who have declared war on the citizens (as in many task forces).
Additionally, I believe that law enforcement officers have often been horribly used in the failed drug war (and I list several among the group of Drug War Victims on my site).
And I despise those who would use the deaths of officers to advocate further war.
Now one of the more interesting debates that often surfaces in this kind of discussion over drug war deaths is the concept of two sides with their own version of how to stop the violence.

The thing is, both are correct.
But are both arguments equally possible?
Option 2 is certainly possible. It is, after all, the status that existed years ago, and it could happen again with the passage of certain laws.
Option 1, however, is impossible. Decades of drug war enforcement have had little impact on the use of drugs and it’s clear that no amount of ratcheting up of the drug war will result in the absence of drug use. Even in countries where drug smuggling earns the death penalty there appears to be no shortage of offenders.
So one option is possible, while the other is not. That should at least cause the prohibitionists to consider the options. If the reverse were somehow true (in an alternate university with different laws of economics), I, as a reformer, would feel it necessary to at least seriously consider and discuss option 1 (despite my views on liberty).
It is intellectually dishonest for prohibitionists to refuse to discuss option 2. Yet they do refuse. And instead they exploit the deaths of good cops to further their descent into madness.

The Drug Czar’s “blog” (where EVERY day is Tuesday!) reported today (Tuesday, March 4): “A Wake-Up Call: Admissions to Treatment for Marijuana use Increases Sharply”
The startling data:

Admission rates for primary marijuana increased nationally by 162 percent between 1992 and 2002

Their conclusion:

The report serves as a “wake-up call” for parents and young people who still view marijuana as a so-called “soft drug.”

The one little bitty problem is that there isn’t a single shred of evidence that supports their conclusion.
Fortunately, for a little better perspective, the Drug Czar touted this AP article, which had the integrity to get some proper perspective:

Advocates of legalizing marijuana disagreed, saying the trend was largely due to an increase in marijuana arrests and had almost nothing to do with more people seeking treatment because they thought their own health was at risk.

“They have the option of going into treatment for marijuana or going to jail,” said Paul Armentano, senior policy analyst for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

FBI records show a substantial increase in marijuana-related arrests during the decade studied, from about 340,000 in 1992 to about 700,000 in 2002.

Bingo!
If treatment was actually needed for severe addiction based on marijuana use (which is contrary to all scientific data that shows marijuana only triggers mild dependency at most), then where is the data that shows that these people really are suffering from addiction problems (as opposed to just having marijuana listed on their intake form).
Well, SAMHSA spokesperson Leah Young had it all covered with this snappy comeback:

“Being forced into treatment does not indicate you don’t need it.”

Yeah, and being a spokesperson doesn’t mean you know what you’re talking about.
The sad thing about this is that massive amounts of resources are going to “treat” tons of people with a mild dependency similar to, or lesser than, caffeine simply because they got caught with a joint.
Of course the treatment industry is having a ball. If marijuana treatment admissions increased 162%, so has their income. Since the treatment industry depends on marijuana admissions for its livelihood, any change in status would threaten their financial health. Legal marijuana would probably reduce their admissions by 50%.
This helps to explain why people like Andrea Barthwell and Peter Bensinger (two of the drug war pushers who have been opposing medical marijuana in Illinois) are so keen to block any change to the legal status of marijuana. They are financially tied to treatment and its related industries.
Andrea Barthwell has huge ties to the treatment industry, including her Encounter Medical Group, which has provided services to the Cook County Juvenile Drug Court Program since 1977.
Peter Bensinger (former DEA head), joined forces with fellow drug prohibitionist Robert DuPont and created Bensinger, Dupont & Associates. The company has provided a variety of services to business and government, including drug testing and substance abuse consulting. Their clients include U.S. Customs Service, the U.S. Department of Transportation, they U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Postal Service, and the Illinois State Police. Their reported revenues in 2000 were $3,900,000. A 2003 report estimates sales at $28,900,000. Nice increase.
The drug czar cannot continue to spout these treatment statistics as if they support his position. Anything more than a surface reading raises more questions about the government’s relationship to monied interests than any real concerns about the dangers of marijuana.
Even on Tuesday.
Update: Just as a reminder, I’ve covered these statistic games by the Drug Czar before in detail. Treatment Statistics or, The Drug Czar is Lying to You. This is where you can dig into the details and find numbers that come at least a little bit closer to revealing the truth.
Example: Let’s take a look at how many are in treatment because they decide that they have a problem (This would also include cases where the parents or other family members decide the person has a problem and refers them to treatment). That would be a much more interesting figure. Well, only 16.6% of those in treatment for marijuana were self/family referred. 31.2% of those in treatment for alcohol were self/family referred, and 63.4% of those in treatment for heroin were self/family referred.
In total, of all people in treatment only 2.5% are self/family referred for marijuana use.

Several people have passed on articles to me about the tragic killing of four RMCP officers by a maniac who had a marijuana grow-op and ended up killing himself.
There have been a number of good discussions about this around the web. The best I’ve seen so far is this article in the National Post of Canada: Why the War on Drugs Can Never Be Won by Jonathan Kay.

Yesterday, four police officers were killed by a pot thug in Alberta. For those who still believe the war on drugs can be won, it will be but one more reason to pound the chest and call for zero tolerance. But common sense dictates otherwise: These four men were not victims of drugs. They were victims of the war on drugs.

This is not the best time to make this point. When men in uniform — men with wives and children and mortgages — are gunned down by criminals, our first human impulse is not to question the mission of the fallen. But we must: There are many good reasons to put one’s life on the line — soldiers, firemen and even taxis drivers do it all the time in a day’s work. But the campaign against reefer, that is not one of them.

The number of people who died yesterday trying to fight the marijuana trade exceeds — by four — the total number of people known to medical science to have died from a marijuana overdose, ever. …

Four more drug war victims.

The Kings County Bar Association proposal was released yesterday to the press and, while it’s gotten no coverage to speak of so far outside of Seattle, both the Seattle Times and the Seattle Post Intelligencer gave it some nice positive coverage.
It is clearly being seen as an opening salvo in a long-term effort.

Proponents of the controversial idea, outlined in a report released yesterday, say continuing to deal with drug addiction as a crime instead of a medical problem is not only expensive, it simply doesn’t work.

They say letting the state regulate now-illegal drugs would curb all kinds of problems in society that the so-called war on drugs has failed to address, including gang violence, petty crime and drug use by kids.

“It’s time for us to take a fresh look at how we are dealing with the use and abuse of drugs in our society,” said the Rev. Sandy Brown, executive director of the Church Council of Greater Seattle, which also stands behind the proposal.

“Our solutions aren’t working. … They’ve actually created injustices that need to be fixed.”

Supporters acknowledge the idea is too new and controversial to get off the ground this year, despite a state Senate bill that proposed a first step. Bar association President John Cary said the idea, for now, is to get a discussion going about a sweeping drug-policy overhaul.

The Seattle P.I. article not only gave the proposal a good overview, it focused on positive comments by supporters, and even reasonable responses by opponents.

King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng said the way drug cases are handled “continues to be an important issue that deserves further discussion and study.”

In a written statement yesterday, he said, “While I don’t agree with the Bar Association’s proposal, it’s important to note that we have made significant changes in our criminal justice system with regard to decreasing sentences and increasing treatment options for drug offenders.”

Within all of that, the one real negative — naturally from Tom Riley of the ONDCP — sounded remarkably ignorant

Tom Riley, a spokesman for the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy, said he didn’t see how “making drugs less difficult for addicted users to get stems the problem.” He suggested the idea would also invite a flood of lawsuits.

“A state or municipality would have to be crazy to take on the legal liability that would come with distributing products with such known, catastrophic health consequences,” Riley said.

It’s so like the Drug Czar’s office to not even discuss the proposal’s merits, but just throw out ridiculous statements that have no foundation.
Probably the key statement was made by Senator Adam Kline:

“I think the King County Bar Association is light-years ahead of the Legislature in assessing the need for a radical sea change in the policy on drugs,” Kline said.

Exactly. And we need to work on helping the legislature catch up.

Serial Catowner has written an interesting and provocative post for Guest Drug WarRants. Check it out and leave your comments.
Remember, anybody that would like to write your own material about the drug war is welcome to do so for Guest Drug WarRants. Just send me your post.

Thanks to Blog Reload, and an article in The Stranger.
The King County Bar Association (KCBA), Seattle Washington, has approved a sweeping, comprehensive, and (frankly) amazing Drug Policy Resolution that will be released tomorrow.
They are calling upon the State of Washington to take over the regulation and dispensation of drugs currently under federal prohibition, and have prepared states’ rights constitutional arguments in preparation for the inevitable show-down with the feds.
This comprehensive work includes a full detailed history of drug prohibition, an analysis of models in other countries and a section called “States’ Rights: Toward a Federalist Drug Policy.” (Which includes a fascinating argument that Washington, by acting as a market participant in drugs by controlling their sale could exempt themselves from interstate commerce regulation.)
Just from the brief reading I’ve done of the entire collection of documents, this may be the most important drug policy reform document in recent years.
I am so impressed with the opening vision statement, that I’m going to re-print it in its entirety here:

State Regulation and Control of Psychoactive Substances: The Vision
The King County Bar Association supports a public health approach to the chronic
societal problem of substance abuse, stressing the need to shift resources into research,
education, prevention and treatment as an alternative to the continued use of criminal
sanctions, to achieve the objectives of:

• reducing crime and public disorder;
• improving public health;
• protecting children better; and
• using scarce public resources more wisely.

By any measure, current drug control policies have failed to achieve those objectives.
As a result of years of intensive study, the King County Bar Association recommends
the establishment of a state- level system of regulatory control over those psychoactive
substances that are currently produced and distributed exclusively in illegal markets.
The main purposes of this state-level regulatory system are:

• to render the illegal markets for psychoactive substances unprofitable,
  thereby eliminating the incentives for criminal enterprises to engage in the
  violent, illegal drug trade;
• to reduce access by young persons to psychoactive drugs and to provide
  them better education and prevention services; and
• to open new gateways to treatment, finding the hard-to-reach population of
  addicted persons who consume the bulk volume of drugs, drying up black
  market demand for those drugs and thereby reducing public disorder,
  economic crimes related to addiction, transmission of disease, accidental
  death, quantities of drugs consumed, initiation of use by young persons and
  drug addiction itself, as well as criminal justice, public health and social
  welfare costs.

The King County Bar Association and its coalition partners are not currently proposing
specific legislation and do not presume to set forth every detail of a state-level regulatory
system for controlling psychoactive substances. Rather, the coalition is calling on the
Washington State Legislature to authorize a special consultative body of experts in
pharmacology, medicine, public health, education, law and law enforcement, as well
as public officials and civic leaders, to provide specific recommendations for
legislative action to establish such a state-level system of regulatory control.
The politically-charged term “legalization” is insufficient to describe how the state
might control those psychoactive substances that are now exclusively produced and
distributed through illegal markets. The concept of strict regulation and control of
psychoactive drugs is a more accurate and useful description of this proposal and must be
carefully distinguished from the idea of commercialization of such drugs.
The King County Bar Association’s vision for a system of effective drug control
contemplates differing degrees of control for each substance, depending on the known
potential for harm. It is likely that only registered addicts would have access to the more
addictive drugs such as heroin, and only through state-licensed or state-controlled medical
treatment facilities as part of addiction treatment regimes aimed at reducing the quantity of
use and eventually the elimination of use — an approach now proven effective in Europe.
The vast bulk of “hard” drugs are consumed by a relatively small number of addicted
users. Certifying and registering as many of those users as possible and bringing them into
state-controlled medical treatment facilities would, therefore, dry up the black market in
each local area. Other potential users who might want to experiment with such substances
would have to obtain them from the “gray” market, which currently exists for other
pharmaceuticals and is easier to control (although a growing problem in the U.S.)
Cannabis might be regulated in the same manner as distilled spirits, with controlled
availability from licensed producers to adults through facilities operated by the state and a
prohibition on advertising. Separate, state-regulated medical cooperatives would provide
cannabis to patients at low cost. As an alternative, a state-supervised system of home
production (not dissimilar to home brewing) and non-commercial exchanges might satisfy
the demand for cannabis, thereby reducing the potential harm from excessive availability
and making state-controlled outlets unnecessary.
Young persons would continue to be prohibited from possessing or using psychoactive
substances because their relatively limited ability to make informed judgments renders
them especially vulnerable to the adverse effects of drug use and preventing or delaying
such use would allow for the development of social competence and resilience to risk.
State sanctions for drug use by young people would not be criminal, however, but
rehabilitative and restorative and based in the community and the family.
Pricing structures for state-controlled substances could easily undercut black market
prices and in many cases the substances would be provided free of charge or at very low
cost (along a sliding scale) to registered addicts at the state-controlled medical treatment
facilities. Any revenue to the state would support the administration of the regulatory
framework and would maximize funding for prevention, treatment, research and education,
while maintaining price levels low enough to render any illegal markets unprofitable but
high enough to deter consumption, especially by young persons.
Most psychoactive substances currently produced and distributed exclusively in illegal
markets would become less available than they are today and certainly less available than
alcohol, especially to young persons. Cannabis might become more available to adults, but
compelling research from many countries indicates that cannabis availability brings about
a “substitution effect,” which dampens the use of alcohol and tobacco, as well as of other,
more dangerous drugs.
Where pure and safe forms of “hard” drugs would be available to addicts through
prescribed maintenance regimes aimed at reducing harm, drug use and drug addiction, the
medical nature of this approach would likely discourage many new users of such drugs
when they are perceived as medicine for sick people more than as a way to have fun.
The prescription drug maintenance programs in Europe and Canada should serve as a
guide, where hard-core drug addicts are brought indoors into medically- supervised
facilities and stabilized with controlled doses that are free of charge. These programs have
brought about very promising outcomes:

• reductions in overdose deaths;
• reductions in the transmission of disease;
• reductions in economic crimes related to addiction;
• reductions in levels of public disorder;
• reductions in the quantity of drugs used;
• elimination of drug habits altogether for 20% of participants;
• stabilization of the health of participants;
• increased employment rates of participants;
• law enforcement support; and
• a changed culture where addictive drugs like heroin lose their cachet and are
  considered more like medication for sick people, resulting in declining rates
  of first-time use of such drugs.

Without such programs in the United States, this hard-to-reach addict population now
continues to stimulate the illegal market, to contribute to public disorder, to spread disease
and to suffer overdoses without any reduction in drug use and certainly no abstinence.
These are just some of the devastating effects of the current approach of drug prohibition
and criminalization, which is draining state and local coffers through ever-rising criminal
justice costs.
The King County Bar Association proposal would not only pay for itself, but would
provide the state with additional funds for effective education about the dangers of
psychoactive drugs and for medical treatment for those harmed by drug use. Recent
research in Washington State has shown how generous investments in prevention and
treatment yield significant savings from avoided costs in medical care, social welfare and
criminal justice. The current proposal would allow for enhanced prevention and treatment
to be financed from massive savings that would arise from reduced use of the criminal
justice system.
[emphasis original]

Wow!
This is truly amazing stuff. The research is solid. The conclusions are correct. The proposal is sensible and workable, and if ever allowed to actually happen would manifestly prove the lie that has been our national drug policy. If this gets any kind of legs, the federal government will go nuclear.

I’ve been asked why I haven’t written on Hunter Thompson. Too daunting, I suppose.
I’ll let Fred Reed speak for me. This tribute says the most to me right now. (via TalkLeft)

It’s a tribute, not an explanation. Only Hunter could explain himself and he chose not to.

From Editor and Publisher (Thanks David)

At least three of the approximately 300 ‘Boondocks’ clients dropped today’s strip mentioning President Bush’s alleged former drug use.

Aaron McGruder’s comic showed one character saying: “Bush got recorded admitting that he smoked weed.” Another character replies: “Maybe he smoked it to take the edge off the coke.”

According to Universal Press Syndicate, newspapers pulling today’s strip included The Detroit News and the Star Tribune in Minneapolis. The Poynter Institute’s Romenesko site reported that the Chicago Tribune also dropped today’s “Boondocks,” with the paper saying the comic “presents inaccurate information as fact.”

I think the Tribune is wrong there. It presents accurate information as comic strip conjecture.
Here’s the strip.
Update: There were two strips involved. Both available here. (Thanks, Scott)

Loretta pointed me to an interesting lobbying group: The National Narcotics Officers’ Associations’ Coalition. Well, naturally, they are outraged at the proposed cuts in the Federal Government’s drug control budget (Remember: the overal federal drug control budget is higher. What has been cut includes the Byrne task force grants, which were ineffective and tied to corruption and abuse.)
The top two listed organizational goals are:

• To ensure that the Edward R. Byrne Memorial Fund is fully funded in order to maintain the multi-jurisdictional drug task forces…and
• To maintain, increase, and intensify drug asset revenue sharing — the most important tool that narcotic law enforcement has today.

So the NNOAC (or Natl Narcs as their website is named) is determined to do whatever it takes to get that money that they feel is rightfully theirs put back in the budget… including tarnishing the memory of terrorism victims.
Their Spring Newsletter (pdf) has a cover filled with images invoking 911 and the teaser: “Illicit Drugs vs. National Security. Page 4.” Page 4 is a remarkably ignorant screed and call to action by the organization’s president, Ron Brooks. He lists practically every bad side effect of drug prohibition as a reason for more money for drug prohibition, and even claims “that drug use weakens this great nation’s ability to defend against terrorism.” I’m not sure, but I think he means that America is too stoned to stand up to terrorists, so we need to divert terrorism-fighting resources and budgets over to arresting pot smokers.

And it clearly is a mission that
deserves adequate federal funding and the unwavering support of
every American, including those in Washington.
I would urge all NNOAC members to realize that this attack on
law enforcement funding and the growing movement to legalize
drugs is a battle that we are currently loosing [sic]. The only way that
we will be successful is for us to all remain organized, focused and
educated on drug policy issues so that we can challenge our nation’s
leaders to continue their support for drug law enforcement.
This is not a battle that we can give up without a fight, nor is it
a battle that we can afford to loose [sic].

Of course, it’s fun to ridicule an ignoramus like Ron Brooks. But the sad part of it is, he’s got a chance of success. He, and others like him, will play the national security card to convince our pork-crazed Congress to give them more money so they can continue to terrorize the American public. And we’ll get to pay for our own torture.