Drug WarRant

Scott at Grits for Breakfast has been covering the racial profiling report from the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition.
The results are interesting in a number of ways — clearly there is some racial profiling going on in Texas, but as Scott notes, there’s also one heck of a lot of searching going on, regardless of race.
Take San Antonio. Of those stopped in traffic stops, 26.7% of blacks, 20% of hispanics, and 9.3% of whites have their car searched. And of those searches, 14-18% actually turn out to have contraband of some kind.
That’s a lot of innocent searches. Not the way I envision the intent of the 4th Amendment. That’s more like going fishing with a net — if we search enough cars, eventually we’ll find something. Personally, I think if you can’t have an 80% success rate or better, then you’re casting too wide a net. You’d think 50% at a minimum. But 18%? Any other job, you get fired for that kind of inefficiency.
Interesting report. Hope they continue to collect the information and get better, more complete information (I would have liked to see more actual numbers rather than just percents and rates). I also hope they follow through with this recommendation:

Consent searches contribute significanly to racial disparities and cannot be easily explained by legitimate factors such as probably cause or existing warrants. The Texas Legislature should ban consent searches and only allow searches when there is a legal basis.

Regular readers of this blog know that I come down very hard on the current administration (and properly so). They’ve got the ball right now and they’re responsible for the injustices that are going on in this war against the people. However, I’m also harsh when I find drug war cheerleaders on any point in the political spectrum. In general, I find that informed individuals on both the left and the right are in favor of reform. Uninformed individuals (particularly those who still mistakenly believe that laws are an effective way to reduce drug use), and those politicians too corrupted by power, are more likely to favor the drug war.
I’m continually amazed and disturbed at how much the drug war is ignored by the main liberal blogs. It’s bad enough that the Democratic Party Platform ignores the vast numbers of victims of our policies. This is almost to be expected. But why the blogs?
Along with dozens of other sites, I visit Daily Kos regularly (although I admit I haven’t spent the time to figure out the entire community structure and rarely venture beyond the main page). The drug war almost never shows up, and when it does, it’s not unusual to find ignorant comments like this one:

If it ain’t gay marriage that will kill us, it’s pro-dope

Come on, people. æIf we are the party of fag loving, dope smoking, military hating hippies, we are in permanent minority status.

-dataguy

or this one

Who cares?

Seriously.

I want to let you in on a secret.

Being Anti-drug use is a bipartisan position.

Leave this shit to NORML to advocate for, we’ve got more important things to worry about.

– Steve4Clark

The sad thing is that both of these were in response to a story about medical marijuana, and so I ask them as I must…

Why do you want to throw sick people in jail for following the advice of their doctor?

As to that “minority status,” dataguy, let me give one possible explanation…
In 1986, Public Law 99-570 passed overwhelmingly without committee hearings, with 301 co-sponsors, including pretty much all of the Democratic leadership. You see, a basketball player had just died of a drug overdose and our representatives were tripping over each other to eagerly demonstrate that they were “tough on drugs.” One of the provisions in this bill was to create a 100 to 1 threshold between powder and crack cocaine. In other words 1/100th of the amount of crack would get the same penalty as the immensely larger quantity of powder. An interesting little note. Blacks tended to prefer crack. Whites tended to prefer powder.
Partly because of this law (and other racist elements of the drug war), we started putting blacks away for drug offenses in record numbers.
In fact, in large part due to the drug war, over 1 in 20 black men of voting age in the country is in a state or federal prison. This is also true in Florida. Now consider the list of ex-felons in Florida who were removed from the voting rolls in 2000 (about 20,000 of whom were black), along with those still in jail simply because they did the wrong kind of cocaine. Consider that blacks in Florida voted overwhelmingly Democrat.
How did that election turn out in 2000, dataguy?
Those on the left have time and time again shot themselves in the foot over the drug war. This is due in part to not having all the facts, but often from fear. Fear of appearing weak.
“We’re just as tough on drugs and crime as the Republicans are,” they say. “We’re passing even tougher laws and harsher sentences. No one can accuse us of being soft on drugs.”
The problem is that until you learn to get “smart” on drugs, you will be promoting and encouraging a corrupt, racist war that fuels a violent criminal black-market. It’s not just about hippies wanting to smoke pot, and it’s time you learned that.
I know that I’m coming down on a whole lot of the Kos community for what is primarily a sin of omission, but forgive me when it seems to the casual observer that you wouldn’t have much of a drug policy reform presence on the front page if it wasn’t for comments from Ben Masel. However, thanks to a note today from nephalim, I discovered there is a tiny drug policy reform presence hidden further within the community — mostly due to nephalim’s extensive pieces on drug prohibition history and heroin/opiate addiction treatment.
And now, finally, there is a Drug War page in the dKosopedia. Horribly anemic, but it’s there.
So I have a challenge for Drug WarRant readers who are on the left.

1. Go to nephalim’s recent request for collaboration and see if you can help him out.
2. Get involved in Daily Kos and get the drug war into their consciousness. Educate, inform, and elevate to the front page.

Via Grassroots Buzz:

Bill O’Rights Arrested On Drug Charges

Senior citizens are an important voice. They read. They vote. They have electoral power. They can be an increadible help for the medical marijuana cause, and a recent poll by AARP found that 72% of older Americans (45 and over) support an adult’s right to use medical marijuana with a physician’s recommendation.
Now we add to this the new information about marijuana’s benefits in dealing with Alzheimers.
This makes medical marijuana and AARP a perfect match. Unfortunately, AARP is getting pressured.

A December 18th Associated Press article discussing the poll mentioned that AARP The Magazine was scheduled to release an article about medical marijuana in its March/April issue. But when the March/April issue reached subscribers in late January, the article was conspicuously absent.

The editors had apparently pulled the article in response to malicious attacks by a “media watchdog” organization, Accuracy in Media, and a pressure campaign by fanatical anti-drug groups with a long history of engaging in malicious and dishonest attacks.

AARP is a political football right now. The left has problems with them because of their support for Bush’s Medicare plan, and the right has problems with them because of their lack of support for Bush’s proposed changes to social security. Regardless of your views on those matters, AARP can be critical for medical marijuana right now.
Accuracy in Media is completely clueless when it comes to medical marijuana. Here’s what they call “one of our best pieces on the hoax known as medical marijuana.”
They don’t even know the difference between THC and Marinol!

Called THC, it is a chemical synthesized in a laboratory and approved for medical use in the treatment for nausea. But the marijuana advocates want no part of that because it is not smoked and they cannot get their desired “high” from a pill or capsule. The existence and availability of THC are rarely mentioned in media reports on marijuana.

Probably the biggest idiot at AIM is Cliff Kinkaid, who is also mentioned in the release with the delightfully provocative title: From Pot to Porn to AARP: How the Seniors Magazine is Aiding the Dope Lobby). Apparently they discovered that an editor for the AARP magazine used to work for Penthouse and High Times magazines, so now they want to taint the entire organization’s view of medical marijuana as “pushing so-called ‘medical marijuana’ on America’s elderly citizens… by the pro-illegal drug lobby.”
Tell AARP directly to stick with its plans to print the story about its poll, or take action through the Drug Policy Alliance.
Not yet eligible for those Senior Citizen discounts? Take action anyway. They’d love to hear from future potential members, too.

Update: John at Holowach Blog takes AIM apart nicely in a piece he calls “Cliff Kincaid is a goddam idiot.”

There are a number of new additions to the Illinois Marijuana Lectures website featuring the Honorable Andrea Barthwell. (Yeah, she uses that title in her own bio. I know it’s used for judges and certain government officials (like Mayor), but having formerly served as the deputy director in charge of lying about marijuana hardly seems sufficient for calling yourself “honorable.”)
The Take Action page now has a whole section justifying the legality of a 501(c)3 non-profit organization to lobby against a bill. I guess that makes it clear that Judy Kreamer’s Educating Voices is footing the bill for the Lecture Tour. Still no explanation why Andrea Barthwell lied about her sponsorship.
They’ve finally added a contact form on the site for “comments, suggestions, messages of support, or feedback.” (Please, folks, be polite. I’m serious. But if you do ask a question and get a response, I’d love to know about it.)
One of the lead items on the newly filled citation page is the Rat Study!
Yep, this 10-year-old study, conducted by Dr. Billy Martin, involved marijuana and rat dependency. Rats were injected with THC for four days and then they were injected with a synthetic THC “antagonist” which suddenly and immediately blocks certain types of receptors in the brain. This caused the rats to twitch and shake.
Of course, this clearly proves that if you plan to do something that requires a steady hand, you shouldn’t

1. Inject THC directly into your body for four days,
2. Follow it up with an injection of THC antagonist SR 141716A, and
3. … be a rat.

This is so incredibly typical of the absolute lack of any integrity on behalf of the Illinois Marijuana Lectures, Andrea Barthwell, and the other drug warriors. Andrea Barthwell is a treatment specialist, and has access to all the resources of the federal government’s multi-billion dollar drug control agency network…
And what does she come up with? The same old crap of the misleading “60% in treatment” statistics and 10-year-old studies of injected rats. 90,000,000 Americans have used marijuana at some point in their lives. Millions of dollars have been spent on studies trying to prove marijuana is dangerous, and this is the science that Barthwell has to offer? Embarrassing. If 60% of teens in treatment are truly there for marijuana addiction (and not just referred there), then where are the studies on the severity of their dependency? Nobody wants to talk about that.
The truth is that marijuana can cause dependency, but it’s mild, and generally less of a problem than alcohol, tobacco, or caffeine — all legal substances.
I don’t have an objection to Dr. Martin’s experiments. I’m all for further research in every aspect of marijuana use (unlike the prohibitionists who block any attempt that doesn’t fit their world view). But what possible relevance does this have with approving a medical marijuana bill in Illinois?
And let’s see if it answers the key question related to medical marijuana:

Q: Why do you want to put sick people in jail for following the advice of their doctor?
A: Look at the rats. They’re shaking.

Nope. Doesn’t work.
Fortunately, some are choosing not to swallow the garbage that the prohibitionists are serving.
In the Quad Cities online:

A medical marijuana bill died last week on a 4-7 vote in a House committee after White House drug ‘czar’ John Walters flew into Springfield to testify against it. He dragged out all the old lies about marijuana being addictive, leading to hard-drug use and said the fact that it helps sick people feel better is no reason to OK its use.

Fewer and fewer people are willing to listen to such nonsense, given the mounting body of evidence — gleaned through formal studies and personal experience — that says otherwise.

And in the Austin Chronicle:

Over the past few years, Walters has increasingly used his position as head of the White House Office of the National Drug Control Policy to lobby against drug policy reform proposals made in individual states, in part by using inflated rhetoric and highly questionable “facts.” Last week he was at it again, telling Illinois lawmakers that 60% of people seeking drug treatment do so because of marijuana abuse and dependency problems, and recycling his ain’t-your-grandpappy’s-pot arguments.

Why am I so hard on Andrea Barthwell?
Because she is intelligent. Because she is a doctor. Because she served for years in the treatment field. Becuase she knows better.
Because people tell me that she once would never have dreamed of testifying against harm reduction like she did last week.
Because she went into the deputy drug czar position claiming that she wanted to fight for increasing the emphasis on treatment over enforcement, and then when the administration used bookkeeping tricks to make it falsely appear that there was an increase in the percentage spent on treatment, she went out and sold it.
Because she knows that the government has blocked research on medical marijuana and yet she claims that the “science” is against it. Because she trots out studies and data that no learned person would consider proof of her assertions and pretends that they are.
Because she calls it a “cruel hoax” when multiple sclerosis sufferer Julie Falco uses marijuana to get through the day.
Why to you want to put sick people in jail for following the advice of their doctor?

August 13, 2004:

John Walters, the head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, recently startled the media by admitting that the $3.3 billion Plan Colombia, now in its fourth year, has failed to make a significant dent in the amount of cocaine flowing out of that country.

Yesterday:

John Walters, director of the US National Drug Control Policy, said on Wednesday in Miami that methods used to combat drugs in Colombia – principally aerial fumigation – were being studied to see how they can be replicated in Afghanistan.

So you’ve got a state, Oregon, that has passed a law allowing assisted suicide in specific situations. Unwilling to accept the audacity of a state wanting to control its own medical practices, the DEA steps in and starts yanking the licenses of doctors who participate (under the notion that the Controlled Substances Act gives the feds the authority to override at whim).
Apparently this infuriated the President, who called in the Attorney General… and I’ve just gotten hold of this transcript of his remarks:

President: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the states respectively.”… The federal government has no place here. The question is a moral one, an individual one. Grappling with the nature of life and the purview of God, in which the federal government has no… Forget it. The courts are gonna nail you. You pull this crap one more time, you’re fired.

Wow! The President really does believe in states’ rights, in individual moral responsibility, in limited federal government… unfortunately this President also happens to be the fictional President Bartlett on “The West Wing.”
In real life, the feds have appealed the case to the Supreme Court and the Supremes have taken the case – Oregon v. Gonzales.
It’s of interest to me because of the over-reach of the Controlled Substances Act, once again interfering in the right of states to allow doctors and patients to choose their own medical course of treatment. Clearly, there are logical connections to Raich v. Ashcroft, and people are already starting to wonder how Raich will affect Gonzales.
Moon Over Pittsburgh has a nice little update on Raich and discusses Gonzales as well. Worth a read if you’re interested in the Supreme Court, federalism and the CSA.

Now that Art Linkletter is back in the news as spokesperson for USANext, it gives us the oppotunity to laugh at his exchanges with Nixon again.
Hesiod over at The American Street has all the fun, including this:

Linkletter: “Another big difference between marijuana and alcohol is that when people smoke marijuana, they smoke it to get high. In every case, when most people drink, they drink to be sociable. You don’t see people –”

Nixon: “That’s right, that’s right.”

Linkletter: “They sit down with a marijuana cigarette to get high –”

Nixon: “A person does not drink to get drunk.”

Linkletter: “That’s right.”

Nixon: “A person drinks to have fun.”

Linkletter: “I’d say smoke marijuana, you smoke marijuana to get high.”

Nixon: “Smoke marijuana, er, uh, you want to get a charge of some sort, and float, and this, that and the other thing.”

Yup. Richard Nixon was an alcoholic.
But, even Richard Nixon knew that Art Linkletter was pretty much an out of touch old fogey. Later on, he famously met with Elvis an enlisted him as an “anti-drug” crusader (what a bizarre moment that was). As Tricky Dick said to Bob Haldeman at the time:

“This is just what I’ve been looking for. Elvis Presley, a rock ‘n’ roll hero to millions, wants to help with our anti-drug crusade. This will go a lot farther with the kids than Art Linkletter.”

There’s more, including Linkletter’s analysis of various marijuana grades.
Update: A commenter reminds me that Linkletter’s daughter had supposedly died in an “LSD-related” incident. There’s several problems with that:

1. The story is false. Diane Linkletter committed suicide and there were no drugs in her system. It appears that the Linkletter family preferred to “encourage” the LSD story than face the reasons for suicide.
2. Even if it was true, it would have been completely irrelevant to the ratcheting up of the war on marijuana caused in part because Linkletter and Nixon were idiots.
3. I have absolutely no sympathy for people in power who experience a tragedy and then procede to use that power to destroy the lives of countless others through ill-advised and counter-productive laws.

Our favorite drug czar was speaking to the press again, this time in preparation for today’s release of President Bush’s national drug control strategy for 2005.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States should employ some of the techniques it is using to fight international terrorism in its war on drugs, U.S. drug czar John Walters said on Tuesday.

OK, before I break something, let’s take a trip in the wayback machine.
1.

“I want to escalate the war on drugs,” said Attorney General John Ashcroft in his first interview after being nominated for the post. “I want to renew it. I want to refresh it.” [link]

2.

A draft of Ashcroft’s “Strategic Plan” from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department’s seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. [link]

3.

In an attempt to show just how benign the War on Terror will be for law-abiding citizens, Ashcroft has chosen an odd model: the War on Drugs. At a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Ashcroft repeatedly said that the tools in the fight against terrorism should be at least as strong as the ones used to fight gambling, organized crime, and illegal (“illicit” in government parlance) substances. Law enforcement officials, he said, should be able not only to freeze terrorists’ assets, but seize them–“Just like we have for those individuals involved in drug trafficking.”[link (9/27/01)]

4.

The drug war and the war on terrorism is converging both practically and,
more important, rhetorically. This will allow the Justice Department and the
Defense Department to use all their new, extraordinary powers for both.
Timmy the drug user will go from being an exaggerated fictional ad to a
basis for ignoring due process for street-level drug investigations and for
involving the military in more domestic law enforcement.[link (11/29/02)]

5.

Ashcroft: “And finally, the Patriot Act updated our anti-terrorism laws to reflect new technologies and to give us the same tools used to fight against drug dealers and organized crime so that we can fight against terrorists.”[link (6/8/04)]

and back to the present…

The United States should employ some of the techniques it is using to fight international terrorism in its war on drugs, U.S. drug czar John Walters said on Tuesday.

OK, can I break something now?
But wait!!! It goes from being horrifyingly inane to mind bogglingly stupid.

On the other hand, Walters said it ought to be easier to go after drugs traffickers than terrorists because the drugs trade involved many thousands of people, making it potentially more vulnerable to attack and disruption.

??? Um. Can you repeat that?

On the other hand, Walters said it ought to be easier to go after drugs traffickers than terrorists because the drugs trade involved many thousands of people, making it potentially more vulnerable to attack and disruption.

Excuse me while my head explodes.

So Jeff Trigg over at Random Act of Kindness is trying to drum up the support of Illinois-based bloggers to promote his pet cause — improving ballot access for Libertarian Party candidates.
But you know what? It’s a good idea anyway. And it doesn’t matter if you support Libertarians or some other third party, or even one of the major parties.
If you’re interested in drug policy reform, you want improved ballot access. Third party candidates (and Libertarians in particular) are much more likely to support drug policy reform publicly. (When I did drug policy-based voting guides, it was mostly the Libertarian candidates who wrote me to thank me for the endorsement. Not a single Democrat or Republican did.) Democrat and Republican politicians not only won’t discuss drug policy reform, they often don’t have to because they’re running unopposed in Illinois. Even a Libertarian candidate that doesn’t have a chance of winning can ask the questions and start the dialog.
So I’m 100% behind this idea. If you’re in Illinois, do your part to help out. Here are the instructions from Jeff:

House Bill 758 is a bill that would reduce the petition signatures that independent and third party candidates need to get in 90 days so they can appear on the ballot. Currently, independent and third party candidates often need 30 to 40 times the number of signatures that Republicans and Democrats need. In the recent Iraq election ALL candidates had the exact same requirement. HB758 would reduce the signatures needed to only double what the Republicans and Democrats need. Passing HB758 is simply the right thing to do.

First, email “Chris Rhodes” ( chris@joincross.com ) and ask him to talk to his boss, Leader Tom Cross, about sponsoring HB758 and getting his leadership team to do likewise. Ask Chris to find out from Tom his thoughts/stance on HB758 and to post those on his blog. (Sorry to put you on the spot Chris but I had to. I’ll try to make it up to you somehow.)

Second, email, call, fax, mail, or otherwise ask our own State Representative to sponsor HB758 immediately.

Don’t know who your rep is? Go here and type in your address.

Now that you know the name of your Rep., go here and find their phone and fax numbers and their addresses.

Some Republican House Member email addresses are here.

For full disclosure – Jeff Trigg, Libertarian – put me up to this but I agree our ballot access laws need to be more free and equal. Please just take a few simple steps and ten minutes to help us out.