Drug WarRant

One of the most incredible aspects of drug prohibition has been the almost total inability to learn from our mistakes in alcohol prohibition. Those in government and those supporting drug prohibition have been either blind to these truths, or have promoted willful ignorance.
I just finished reading one of the best pieces I have seen in this area. Alcohol Prohibition and Drug Prohibition: Lessons from Alcohol Policy for Drug Policy by Harry G. Levine and Craig Reinarman examines both prohibitions and analyzes the lessons from the earlier one that can be applied to the latter.
After a careful analysis of the history of both, the authors demonstrate a couple of important points:

First, the legalization of drug production and sales and the establishment of drug control along the lines of alcohol control is a reasonable and practical policy option. Supporters of alcohol prohibition always claimed that alcohol was a special substance that could never be regulated and sold like other commodities because it was so addicting and dangerous. However, as the last seventy plus years of alcohol control and the experiences of many other societies have shown, the prohibitionists were wrong. The experiences of drug policy in other nations, and the experiences of U.S. pharmaceutical and drugstore regulation, suggest that most if not all psychoactive substances could be similarly produced, regulated, sold, and used in a generally lawful and orderly fashion. Therefore, it would mark a significant advance if the current U.S. debate on drug policy could be moved beyond the question of whether such a system of legalized drug control is possible. It is. Instead, we think debate should focus on whether a nonmoralistic assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of such a system make it desirable, and what different regulatory options might look like.

Second, a workable system of at least partially legalized drug production and sales — of drug control — would have to be a flexible one, geared to local conditions. Edward Brecher recommended in his landmark study Licit and Illicit Drugs (1972), and the importance of local option was also stressed over a century ago by the Committee of Fifty (Levine, 1983). Because towns, cities, counties, states and countries vary enormously, alcohol and drug policies must be shaped according to local environments.

As with alcohol control, drug control could be implemented so as to reduce substantially if not eliminate the illegal drug business and most of the crime, violence, and corruption associated with it. Drug control with a public health orientation would also seek to encourage milder and weaker drugs and to make them available in safer forms accompanied by comprehensive education about risks, proper use, and less dangerous modes of ingestion. In other words, a public-health-oriented drug control regime would seek to reverse the tendencies that appear inherent under criminalization, where production, distribution, and consumption are pushed into deviant subcultures, where purity is uncontrolled and dosage is imprecise.

If a legalized, decentralized drug control system with local option is implemented, then the experience of alcohol regulation suggests that, in the long run, drug problems would probably not rise significantly above the levels now present under drug prohibition, and overall consumption might not rise either (see also Nadelmann, 1989a). Similarly, if such a public health model of drug control were coupled with increased social services and employment for impoverished inner-city populations, then the abuse of drugs like heroin and cocaine might well be expected to decrease (Reinarman and Levine, 1997; Brecher, 1972; Jonas, 1990).

The paper goes on to tackle the problems of global prohibition (which the authors consider to be a long-term reform challenge that will be tackled first by countries simply ignoring the treaty provisions).
The article is available at the Centre for Drug Research, University of Amsterdam.

A couple of pieces of enjoyable, entertaining and enlightening reading focus on a couple of icons in the reform movement.
“bullet” In Exhale, Stage Left, by Peter Carlson in the Washington Post, we get a colorful profile of NORML’s Keith Stroup, who is retiring. It’s a fascinating story of some of his wild experiences in developing the marijuana reform effort, as well as an indication of how far that movement has come.
“bullet” While Boston’s The Weekly Dig is not the Washington Post, take a moment to check out “These Laws are So Fucking Stupid” by Paul McMorrow (The Post probably wouldn’t have allowed that headline). The article is a profile on Joe White and Change the Climate — a Boston based organization that has been huge in fighting for the right to bring the discussion of marijuana public.

“I’ve been more of a non-activist over the years,” White said. “I got involved with this issue partially as a business endeavor, but really in response to my teenager, who’s now 23, asking me why adults lie to kids about marijuana. He’s part of the DARE generation, the generation that’s been bombarded by ads that make marijuana out to be the most dangerous substance on the planet. He told me that he didn’t smoke, but his friends did, and if we weren’t telling them the truth about marijuana, maybe we weren’t telling them the truth about other drugs, more dangerous drugs.

“And once I started learning how much money is spent on arresting and prosecuting people for marijuana-how much money is spent disseminating inaccurate information about marijuana — the more obsessed I became about telling people the truth and educating the public about what a huge fiasco this is. It costs us billions of dollars a year. Plus, it’s easy for me — I smoke pot. I’m fighting against stupid laws that go against my self-interest. Nobody ever died from smoking marijuana — that’s why these laws are so fucking stupid.”

Good articles worth a read. (And thanks as always to Scott for all the tips.)

Well, my one week vacation stretched to almost two, with some wonderful time spent in Indianola (Iowa), Quincy (Illinois), and Chicago with family and friends. While I took a holiday vacation from Drug WarRant, the drug war continued to show up in discussion and on the news.
It was interesting over the holidays to talk with a variety of people from different backgrounds and political persuasions, including some violently opposed to drug use. Every single one I talked with, however, agreed that the drug war is not working.
I’m not saying there aren’t regular people who still mistakenly support the government’s war on drugs. It does appear, however, that their numbers are shrinking. The thin ice under the government’s position is getting downright vaporous in places. Once enough people are willing to point out that the support is gone, the drug war will no longer be able to stand.
How about you? Did you talk with friends or family about the drug war over Christmas? What did they have to say?

I’ll be gone for just over a week, visiting relatives in Indianola, Iowa and Quincy, Illinois, with little time for, or likelihood of finding, wireless connections for blogging. Please continue to send tips my way — I’ll still be reading!
There’s a whole community of us now keeping people up to date on the drug war, so take a moment to check out some of my friends and accomplices.

• Libby at Last One Speaks is always an interesting as well as an informative read. She’s like a good cup of coffee and a newspaper on a Sunday morning.
• Baylen at D’Alliance brings the resources of one of the top drug policy web sites to blogging (along with a whole lot of bad puns).
• Jim at Vice Squad not only gives you drugs, but sex and alcohol and more for the full spectrum of vices internationally.
• Steve at decrimwatch has been a tireless worker for policy change, and focused on decriminalization in his blog — but you can get more on occassion.
• Loretta at US Marijuana Party gives you drug war blogging with an attitude. And why not? She’s fighting it from the trenches.
• David Borden at Prohibition and the Media is new to blogging, but an old hand in the drug policy reform field, through the excellent StopTheDrugWar.org.
• Jeralyn at TalkLeft certainly talks about much more than the drug war, but she’s always on top of the critical drug policy and crime issues.
• Scott at Grits for Breakfast has the very best coverage of Texas and that nasty beast called the Drug Task Force.
• And don’t forget Radley at The Agitator, who covers all the nanny state issues, including the drug war. I’ll be continuing to guest blog there when I get a chance.

These, and others too numerous to mention, are the ones who keep me on my toes and make me post to keep up with them. They are also the ones who inspire me and help me realize that there is a community working together out there. And that’s great news.
Check them out. I’ll be back in a week or so.
– Pete

I don’t know if it’s just because I’m paying additional attention since I started writing this blog, but it sure seems to me that the past couple of years has seen a marked increase in mainstream newspapers and columnists recognizing the folly.
Today, it’s Steve Chapman’s column in the Chicago Tribune (many of his columns end up getting picked up elsewhere, so this could run around the country). It’s a strong indictment of our policies, though a bit depressing.

Thanks to these brutal penalties, New York prisons house 19,000 people convicted on drug charges, or one of every three inmates. The vast majority of them are small-time offenders with no history of violence.

The belated recognition of these failures exemplifies the history of the drug war. It has been a perennial failure, but to a large extent, we persist at it. Citizens in many states adopt humane and comparatively libertarian policies on drugs while voting for presidents (Democratic and Republican alike) who regard even pot as a ghastly menace that must be fiercely resisted.

Chapman goes from the Rockefeller drug laws to discussing the current situation with the federal government and medical marijuana.

In this realm, ideology has a way of overriding mere facts. We have learned, for example, that marijuana is a comparatively benign drug that has few risks and some apparent benefits. In 1999, a National Academy of Sciences panel said pot has “potential therapeutic value” for “pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation.” The New England Journal of Medicine has endorsed medical marijuana.

Ten states have also approved the idea. Yet the Bush administration, like the Clinton administration before it, has spurned the idea. Not only has it actively fought state initiatives to let sick people get relief from cannabis, it has obstructed research to help patients.

He then talks about the DEA’s efforts to prevent research, including the rejection of the University of Massachussets’ proposal to conduct clinical trials, and he talks about the bizarre logic used by the DEA in denying the application. He concludes:

The DEA would prefer that we not get information that might cause us to change our minds.

In time, the steady accumulation of evidence about the value of medical marijuana may overcome such opposition–just as the experience under the Rockefeller drug laws forced a retreat. Someday, the folly of the entire drug war may bring it to an end.

But don’t hold your breath.

Jacob Sullom discusses the Hurwitz case at Reason Online in Trust Busters: A pain doctor’s drug trafficking conviction sets a chilling precedent

… the prosecutors got the jury to overlook the obvious weaknesses in their case and convict Hurwitz, in essence, of trusting his patients too much.

That verdict sends a clear message to doctors that it’s better to err on the side of suspicion. Knowing they could be prosecuted for believing a patient who turned out to be an addict or a dealer, doctors will be even less inclined to take the risk, compounding the already appalling problem of people in pain who suffer needlessly because physicians are afraid to help them.

Hurwitz was not afraid, which is why desperate patients flocked to him. Inevitably, he also attracted people who sought to take advantage of his compassion. Yet none of the surreptitiously recorded conversations with patients-turned-informants that the prosecution presented included any acknowledgment of the conspiracy Hurwitz supposedly led.

My “Return of the King” extended DVD gift set arrived today, so my evening is planned. Here are a few things to read.
“bullet” Hurwitz Convicted. A pain doctor has been convicted of drug trafficking and could get life. Bad news for future people in pain. This will make doctors even more likely to under-prescribe. My recommendation (from If I were Contrarian King):

DEA agents who investigate doctors for prescribing pain medication must have other DEA agents perform any medical procedures (like heart transplants and brain surgery) that are needed by the agents. After all, if DEA agents know so much about medicine…

“bullet” Australia has started roadside driving tests for drug use. decrimwatch shows here and here that it isn’t working so well to start out.
“bullet” Scott Hensen at Grits for Breakfast has news that Texas may consider ending Byrne drug task forces. Wow!
“bullet” NORML reports

The district attorney for the city of Anchorage, at the
behest of Gov. Frank Murkowski, is requesting a judge to re-examine a 1975
Alaska Supreme Court ruling (Ravin v. State) which determined that the
possession of marijuana by adults within the home is a constitutionally
protected activity.

Interestingly,

The state appeals courts have acknowledged that they would be “willing to
consider Ravin if presented with compelling new evidence that small amounts of
marijuana are harmful,” according to a report this week in the Anchorage Daily
News.

I wonder how they’ll manage to show that?
“bullet” (from Scott) First-ever Safety Study Of Medical Cannabis Use In Canada Launched

A first-of-its-kind study of safety issues surrounding the medical use of cannabis has just been launched. Known as the COMPASS study (Cannabis for the management of pain: assessment of safety study), the research initiative will follow 1400 chronic pain patients, 350 of whom use cannabis as part of their pain management strategy, for a one-year period. Seven participating pain clinics across Canada are now enrolling patients for this study.

This will be specifically for pain patients (not including medical marijuana use for cancer, etc.).

Fujairah, United Arab Emirates
Fujairah criminal court has awarded the death sentence to Lisa Tray, who delivered a package containing about 5 ounces of narcotics to an undercover cop. The woman claimed to be unaware of the contents that had been given to her by her step-father.
While there are a few countries who regularly execute people for selling drugs, that’s not yet true in the U.S. (although Newt Gingrich once proposed the death penalty for smuggling marijuana in certain circumstances).
So far, the U.S. tends to stick with long sentences, such as the 55 years for selling three bags of pot, and now in Virginia, a man has been sentenced to 40 years in prison and $500,000 fine for possession of 14 rocks of crack cocaine.

Oral Argument transcript available online. (pdf)
I haven’t had a chance to read it yet, but I’ll be talking about it more later.
Updates: First reaction. The Justices went after Clements (government side) a lot harder than was widely reported.
Line that made me laugh (and gag at the same time):

Clements: And I think it’s wrong to assume that there’s any inherent hostility to the substances at issue here. I mean, the FDA, for example, rescheduled Marinol from Schedule II to Schedule III in a way that had the effect of making it easer to prescribe and more available.

Well, they clearly came after Barnett hard, but it could be because they are uncertain as to how to draw the line that must be drawn somewhere in this case.
I’m still optimistic — anything could happen in this case, and I would give a lot to be in the private sessions with the Justices when they argue it amongst themselves.

In today’s Slate, Hitchens writes Let the Afghan Poppies Bloom:
How the drug war is undermining the war on terrorism.

Do you know anyone who really believes in the “war on drugs” as it is supposedly waged in the United States? It is widely understood to be the main index of pointless and costly and unjust incarceration, a huge source of corruption in police departments, and a cause of crime in its own right as well as a source of tainted and “cut” narcotics. And that is before you even consider absurdities and cruelties like the denial of medical marijuana, or the diversion of personnel and resources from the war against more threatening gangsters. Our entire state policy, at home and abroad, is devoted not to stopping a trade that actually grows every year, but rather to ensuring that all its profitable means of production, distribution, and exchange remain the fiefdom of criminal elements. We consciously deny ourselves access to properly refined and labeled products and to the vast revenue that could accrue to the Treasury instead of to the mobsters here and overseas.

This demented legacy of the Nixon administration will have to be abandoned sooner or later, and I believe that the threatened sacrifice of Afghanistan to the dogma may be the “tipping point.”

Well said.