Drug WarRant

Our Drug Czar finished up his speech in Vienna with the following:

President Bush has recently called for the United States to engage the world in a renewed campaign to realize the core principles of our nation and of the United Nations: human rights, human dignity, and human freedom. When we push back against illegal drug use, we help establish these fundamental principles more securely for all our nations.

“bullet” Dogs sniffing cars, and task forces smashing down doors in pre-dawn military-style raids — I guess that’s what human rights looks like.
“bullet” Innocent school children and employees peeing in a cup — that must be the sound of human dignity.
“bullet” Having 5% of the world’s population, yet 25% of the world’s prison population — that would be our leadership in human freedom.
Thanks, John.

Yesterday, I noted that the Washington Post not only disagreed with our drug warriors regarding needle exchange, but caught them in some bold lies.
Turns out a couple of other major newspapers have done the same. First, the New York Times talks about the stupidity and danger of the administration’s international drug policy:

The Bush administration has contributed to suffering and death through the so-called global gag rule, which prohibits Washington from giving money to any group that performs – or even talks about – abortions.æ Organizations that provide desperately needed family planning and women’s health services have lost their financing.æ Now there are moves in Congress and inside the administration to apply a similar rule to needle exchange programs.æ That would be an even more deadly mistake.

Allowing drug users to trade used needles for clean ones gets dangerous needles off the street and minimizes needle sharing.æ A proven weapon against AIDS transmission, it has not been shown to increase drug use, and indeed may reduce drug addiction by providing a way to talk to drug users and lead them to treatment.æ It is endorsed by virtually every mainstream public health group.

Then they nail them:

In the Senate, a member of the staff of Sam Brownback, the Kansas Republican, has compiled a grossly inaccurate chart of programs financed by the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria that is subtitled “Immoral, Illegal ( with bilateral funds ) or Inconsistent with U.S.æ Foreign Policy.” Needle exchanges rank high. … [Representatives Mark Souder of Indiana and Tom Davis of Virginia] claim that a U.N.æ drug agency report attacks needle exchange as encouraging drug use.æ In fact, the report makes no such accusation and endorses needle exchanges.

Liar, Liar …
Then we hear from the Chicago Tribune today:

Clean-needle programs have been shown to be effective in controlling the spread of HIV, hepatitis and other diseases by protecting intravenous drug addicts from contaminated syringes. Illinois has had needle-exchange programs since the 1980s, and in 2003 legalized the over-the-counter purchase of hypodermic needles. Buyers receive information on how to use the needles as well as where to get help if they are addicts.

And yet, resistance in Washington to such efforts has been strong. Congress prohibited the use of federal funds for such programs unless they were found effective by the Department of Health and Human Services. Former President Bill Clinton declined to lift that ban, even though his HHS secretary made such a finding. President Bush has made no move to lift the ban.

And now some in Congress want to cut off American support for international organizations that provide clean-needle exchanges. Given the reach of U.S. efforts on AIDS, for this country to stop funding organizations that provide needle exchanges would be a blow to worldwide efforts to contain the epidemic.

… and then they move in for the kill:

Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.), is leading the effort to restrict U.S. funding for international groups that, an aide says, “distribute paraphernalia for the consumption of illegal drugs.” Souder would direct funds only to prevention and drug rehabilitation efforts. …

Souder cites a study of a needle-exchange program in Vancouver that, according to his spokesman, demonstrated the “HIV and hepatitis epidemics exploded in the aftermath of the introduction of needle-exchange programs, as did the drug epidemic.”

But the doctors who conducted the Vancouver study wrote, in an April letter to the director of the National Institutes of Health, that Souder’s interpretation of the data was incorrect. “For Mr. Souder to take the Vancouver data out of context, is selective and self-serving,” they wrote.

Liar, Liar, pants ablaze!
Three major newspapers. And while they didn’t use the “L” word, they sure meant it.

What’s more harmful to a child? Seeing Mom smoke a joint? Or seeing her dragged off to prison?
“bullet” Via Jacob Sullum at Hit and Run, California Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian (R-Stockton) has introduced a bill that would make it a felony to smoke pot or use other illegal intoxicants in the presence of your kids.
“bullet” Via the Drug War Chronicle, the South Dakota legislature passed a bill so that people who use ANY hard drug in a location where children are present can be criminally charged with child abuse and neglect and be faced with civil proceedings to have their children taken away.
What happened to all the talk about family values? About the importance of a mother and father to raise children? Now I’ll admit that drug addict parents may not be the best ones, yet that’s a decision that can be made in individual situations based on what’s actually best for the children, rather than making irrevocable decisions based on one instance.
These lawmakers, as usual, care nothing for children. They just use them for their political grandstanding.

Editorial in the Calgary Herald

LET’S DECLARE WAR ON THE GROW OPS

Longer Jail Terms Might Help Protect Police and Citizens …

Thursday’s horrific killing of four police officers at a farm near Mayerthorpe, at the site of a marijuana grow-op, tragically highlights why such operations and drug dealers in general ought to receive a much higher priority in terms of investigation, prosecution and punishment.

Idiots.

Note: I’ll be in New York City next week (Mar. 12-17) hosting a theatre tour. I’ll have a few open moments and would love to meet drug policy reformers for coffee. Drop me a line.

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.