Drug WarRant

Via TalkLeft: Florida’s Judge Gregory Posnell refused to apply guidline sentences for a drug conviction that would have called for 188 months for a 24-year-old with thyroid cancer, based on drug stings involving $500. And he let us know how he felt in his opinion (pdf).

A guideline sentence in this case starkly illustrates the problem of attempting to fit the human experience into a discrete mathematical matrix. It just can’t be done, and this Court cannot in good conscience do it, because it offends the Court’s concept of justice.
…
In the meantime, the “war on drugs” goes on. Others will undoubtedly replace Torrey Williams in the chain of drug commerce, and the Courts will continue to incarcerate them for long periods at alarming rates.

More at Doug Berman’s blog.

Some of my regular readers have had some difficulties lately. Comments have been moved to a new server, which hopefully will be much more robust, and some comments from the past couple of days may have been lost in the changeover (I have not deleted any comments).
Also, I don’t know if it’s at all related, but some comcast customers have been unable to access salonblogs or other radio userland blogs for the past few days. That appears to be resolved now.
Thanks for hanging in there and continuing to visit the Rant! (And don’t forget to visit The Agitator, where I am doing some guest blogging.)

In the December, 2004 issue of Scientific American:
“The Brain’s Own Marijuana: Research into natural chemicals that mimic marijuana’s effects in the brain could help to explain–and suggest treatments for–pain, anxiety, eating disorders, phobias and other conditions” by Roger A. Nicoll and Bradley N. Alger

Marijuana is a drug with a mixed history. Mention it to one person, and it will conjure images of potheads lost in a spaced-out stupor. To another, it may represent relaxation, a slowing down of modern madness. To yet another, marijuana means hope for cancer patients suffering from the debilitating nausea of chemotherapy, or it is the promise of relief from chronic pain. The drug is all these things and more, for its history is a long one, spanning millennia and continents. It is also something everyone is familiar with, whether they know it or not. Everyone grows a form of the drug, regardless of their political leanings or recreational proclivities. That is because the brain makes its own marijuana, natural compounds called endocannabinoids (after the plant’s formal name, Cannabis sativa).

The authors have both been extensively involved in research in endocannabinoids, and they give a fascinating, though often technical, overview of how marijuana affects the brain, starting with a brief history of the use of marijuana worldwide and leading to the effects on specific parts of the brain.
One of the most interesting parts to me was the discussion on how the brain deals with stressful situations. Research has shown that repeated stimulus (like loud sounds) combined with stressful situations (like bullets whizzing at you) generates a natural fear reaction to the stimulus (in this case, loud sounds). In most people, after the stressful situation stops, gradually the stimulus fails to produce fear (so you’re not always jumping at loud sounds). Natural endocannabinoids are important in reducing the level of anxiety when the danger passes, but it’s believed that some individuals don’t produce them correctly, and you get no reduction of anxiety.
This is probably why the Israelis have looked into marijuana as a therapy for soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder, and it leads to all sorts of potential uses of marijuana for psychological treatments.
The authors conclude:

In a remarkable way, the effects of marijuana have led to the still unfolding story of the endocannabinoids. The receptor CB1 seems to be present in all vertebrate species, suggesting that systems employing the brain’s own marijuana have been in existence for about 500 million years. During that time, endocannabinoids have been adapted to serve numerous, often subtle, functions. We have learned that they do not affect the development of fear, but the forgetting of fear; they do not alter the ability to eat, but the desirability of the food, and so on. Their presence in parts of the brain associated with complex motor behavior, cognition, learning and memory implies that much remains to be discovered about the uses to which evolution has put these interesting messengers.

A fun read: Radley Balko’s A Mania Called Horse. What is the new heroin? What isn’t?

hysteria has become the heroin of talking heads

One of our favorite love-to-hate drug warriors is looking to propose a new bill. Here’s his letter:

Dear Colleague,

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has failed to educate the
public against a dangerous drug whose dangers have been kept from the public
by those promoting its use.
Vioxx?
No. Marijuana.
By law, all drugs bought, sold and prescribed in the U.S. must first undergo
rigorous clinical trials and be proven to be safe and effective by the FDA
before they can be made available to patients. This process ensures patient
safety, protects the public health and ensures accountability and liability
should a patient be injured or harmed.

With no scientific evaluations or conclusive evidence of safety
or effectiveness, however, a number of states and localities have sought to
legalize smoking marijuana for so-called “medical” use.

Smoked marijuana has never been approved for medical use by the FDA. For
several years, in fact, FDA allowed a limited number of seriously ill
patients to use smoked marijuana. The program was terminated in 1992 when
the Public Health Service (PHS) stated there was no scientific evidence that
the drug was assisting patients, and issued a warning that using smoked
marijuana as a form of medical therapy may actually be harmful to some
patients.

The fact is smoking marijuana has no scientifically proven
medical benefits.

Smoking marijuana puts users at risk for countless serious health problems
and may worsen the conditions for which patients wrongly believe it is
treating. And real medical alternatives exist for patients suffering from
the conditions proponents of smoking marijuana claim it can treat. And
again, patients who are smoking marijuana are being denied legitimate care
that could improve rather than worsen their medical conditions.

The public’s health would be best served if science and the FDA continued to
be the basis and judge of the safety and effectiveness of patients’ drugs.
Despite repeated requests by the House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice,
Drug Policy and Human Resources, FDA has been reluctant to educate the
public about the false claims and real dangers of smoking marijuana.
I will introduce the “Safe and Effective Drug Act” next week. This bill
directs the National Institutes for Health to examine the available
scientific data regarding the safety and effectiveness of smoking marijuana
and requires the FDA to post this information and distribute it to those
public health entities that advocate or recommend patients smoke marijuana.
If you would like to co-sponsor this legislation, please contact Roland
Foster of my staff…

Sincerely,
Mark E. Souder
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources

A couple of thoughts come to mind after reading this letter.

1. Does Mark Souder realize the irony of mentioning Vioxx when talking about looking to the FDA for safety and effectiveness of drugs? After all, while marijuana has never killed anyone, the death toll for Vioxx, which was fast-track approved by the FDA, has reached tens of thousands.
2. After you get past the anti-medical marijuana rhetoric and the implied assumption that medical marijuana can only be smoked (there’s also vaporizing, and topical or oral treatments), you realize that the stated intent of the bill also matches the interests of drug policy reformers.

Part of the problem with medical marijuana all along is that the federal government has both supressed research, and also ignored existing research and data (all the while complaining that there is not sufficient scientific support). A bill that would require the government to research the available data would seem favorable to anyone seeking the truth (assuming that such a process would be allowed to include the truth).
This will be an interesting one to watch. I’ve written to Souder’s aide mentioning the problem with limiting it to smoked marijuana and he indicated that they were open to changing it to include other applications in a future re-write.

• Mystery spraying in Afghanistan. Tomorrow’s New York Times article still has no answers as to who has been spraying opium poppy fields with toxic chemicals and destroying crops. Spraying has not been authorized by the Afghan government, and alternate crop programs are not yet in place. The American government has denied any knowledge, but Afghanis aren’t buying it, given that the U.S. has long argued for chemical eradication. Governor Hajji Din Muhammad noted “The Americans control the airspace of Afghanistan, and not even a bird can fly without them knowing.”
• TalkLeft tells us that Senator McCain is threatening new legislation to impose mandatory drug testing of professional baseball players. TalkLeft also notes that a Cali Cartel dealer has been extradited to the U.S., which segues into…
• Last week, Mark Kleiman, in Weirder than Satire in Columbia, noted that cocaine traffickers are being accused of pretending to be genocidal terrorists in order to get preferential treatment.
• Scotus Blog says that Hoasca Tea may be heading to the Supreme Court (Justice Breyer granted an application for a temporary stay). This case will put the government in the position of explaining why they are denying an exception to the Controlled Substances Act for the use of Hoscoa Tea in O Centro Espirita Beneficients Uniao Do Vegetal religious ceremonies, while allowing a religious exemption for Native American use of peyote.
• The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has a 4-part series: Tougher sentencing law carries hefty price: Estimated $1.8 billion through 2025
• Drug War Corruption. In Mexico, seventeen federal, state and local investigators, prosecutors and police officers have been arrested. Those arrested face charges of protecting drug dealers as well as homicide or accessory to murder in the slayings of nine people.

Campaign to Urge Teens to ‘Steer Clear of Pot’
During National Drunk and Drugged Driving (3D) Prevention Month

Notice that the Drug Czar isn’t suggesting that teens steer clear of alcohol? That’s because this campaign really doesn’t care about teen driving safety. The plan behind the tactic is to use the fear of teen accidents to encourage more zero-tolerance drugged driving laws (laws that don’t test for impairment, but rather any incidence of THC in the body, which could be from smoking a joint several days earlier).
The problem is that there are no reliable studies showing high risk from marijuana and driving (certainly there are risks, but studies show that the risks are well below alcohol or fatigue). So the Drug Czar has to create his own results.
The release mentions:

“the Drug Czar cited higher marijuana rates among young driving crash victims”

So I went out and bought a copy of the study that the Drug Czar cited: Epidemiology of Alcohol and Other Drug Use Among Motor Vehicle Crash Victims Admitted to a Trauma Center, 2004. Briefly, here’s what the study told me.

1. It covered a “limited sample of seriously injured patients at an eastern US Level 1 trauma center,”
2. “…we were unable to accurately distinguish between drivers, passengers, and pedestrians due to the lack of specific crash information.” and
3. “the qualitative results of the POC [Point of Collection] and laboratory immunoassay tests do not permit any interpretation regarding impairment”

So, in a limited study of crash victims (including drivers, passengers, and pedestrians), it was determined that some of them had used marijuana at some time prior to the crash, and of those who had, the highest incidence was in the 18-25 age group.
Yep. Drug Czar Science.

Tom Angell is communications director for Students for Sensible Drug Policy. He recently responded to a Kentucky school’s decision to implement a random, suspicionless drug testing program for all student athletes. Here’s an excerpt:

School officials should welcome these at-risk students into the positive atmospheres provided by team sports, especially during the crucial hours between the end of the school day and the time their parents come home from work.æ Instead, drug testing programs turn students toward the streets, where they’ll be more likely to experiment with drugs.æ

Yanking at-risk students out of their after-school activities and deterring others from joining could have the unintended consequence of worsening an existing drug problem in the student body.æ Indeed, the U.S.æ Department of Education and Department of Justice published a report in 1998 underscoring the importance of extracurricular involvement in crime and drug-use reduction among adolescents.æ Why would school boards want to further alienate the young people who need their help the most?

Forcing students into bathroom stalls while school officials listen for the sounds of urination greatly damages the relationships of trust that are so crucial in our schools.æ Students should feel that they can approach adults if they have problems with drugs or are experiencing other hardships of being teenagers.æ Instead, the “gotcha” attitude that is fostered by drug testing isolates students and deters them from seeking the help and advice they might need.

Read the whole thing. And if a school district in your area considers drug testing, use this as a guide to write your own letter or OpEd.

A new study confirms what Radley Balko said in his outstanding Cato article today — the war on drugs isn’t working.

WASHINGTON — After 25 years and $25 billion the United States is further from winning the war on drugs, a study released Tuesday indicates.

The report conducted by the Washington Office on Latin America, a non-governmental organization that has the stated goal of trying to “reorient U.S. drug control policy to the region,” concludes that U.S. policy geared toward “reducing drug abuse and availability in the United States” from a “supply-reduction model does not work.”

The numbers tell the story pretty graphically:

Data compiled by WOLA show that since 1981 the retail price for 2 grams of cocaine went from $544.59 to $106.54 in 2003. Retail heroin prices mirrored the decline in cocaine prices, falling from $1,974.49 to $361.95 during the period.

Walsh noted that “price estimates are manifestations of supply and demand” and thus are the most accurate indicators to “determine what is coming in.”

The number of incarcerated drug offenders rose from 45,272 to 480,519 from 1981 to 2002, and government spending on overseas supply control rose from $373.9 million to $3.6 billion from 1981 to 2004.

Overall, government spending on supply control and the price of cocaine and heroin have had negatively correlated trends, with the price of cocaine decreasing by 32 percent and spending rising by almost 10 percent.

The greatest change occurred in the number of jailed drug offenders, which swelled by 55 percent, serving sentences that are sometimes incommensurate to the crime and could be addressed more cost effectively through drug rehabilitation, the report said.

More at D’Alliance

Before I explain the tease of this headline, there have been a couple of very good columns on the Raich v. Ashcroft medical marijuana case:
First off, Jonathan Adlers’s outstanding column at the National Review: High Court High Anxiety: The Supreme Court’s medical-marijuana case could send federalism up in smoke.

Despite its apparent importance to drug warriors, Ashcroft v. Raich is not about medical marijuana or drug prohibition. Nor is it about the wisdom, or lack thereof, of allowing chronically ill individuals to smoke weed for medicinal purposes. Rather, it concerns the limits of federal power under the Constitution. Federalism does not play favorites. It limits the scope of federal power to pursue liberal and conservative ends alike. If a majority of the Court remembers this lesson, Angel Raich will get to keep her medicine. More important, the nation will keep the constitutional limits on federal power.

In a much lighter tone, we have the also outstanding Dude, Where’s My Integrity? Medical marijuana tests the Supreme Court’s true love of federalism. By Dahlia Lithwick at Slate

In the simplest sense this is a states’ rights, or federalism, case. But it’s also a case full of twists and inversions, endless electric guitar solos, tie-dyed mayhem, and strange bedfellows. And that’s not just among the folks camped out on the courthouse steps for oral argument this morning–many of whom were probably later rounded up and forced to pee in small cups outside John Ashcroft’s office.

But what I’m really here to talk about is the most bizarre column of all. You know the kind — written in complete seriousness, but has you rolling in the aisles. It’s Gary Aldrich’s column at TownHall: Medical Pot-heads.

…There is a good chance the medical pot-heads will eventually win this cultural battle.

Their victory will be achieved if Conservatives have forgotten how to frame their arguments so as to ensure victory.  We also can lose because, like children, Liberals never have learned to respond properly to the word, “No!” And, like so many parents, we get worn down and weary of arguing with people who act like children.

By the way, unlike all of the other columnists I’ve read on Raich, Gary completely ignores the issue of states’ rights, or the power of the centralized federal government over the individual.
This might be a good time to point out that Aldrich is actually President and Founder of the Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty
Aldrich goes on…

The Liberals or Libertarians argue that pot is not such a bad drug, and they are, in turn, supported by the millions of Americans who tried pot in high school or college and didn’t turn into drug-crazed monsters.

Unable to come up with any specific bad things to say bad about marijuana, Aldrich then proceeds to lump marijuana and cocaine and other unnamed drugs into “drug use by addicts” — a problem he notes was exacerbated because one-quarter of Clinton’s staff was “using” on inauguration day. (The Clinton mention was apparently an obligatory part of his mission with the Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty).

To feed their out-of-control drug habit, the addict often turns to a life of crime.  After they have begged, borrowed, and stolen money and valuables from their friends and families, their future becomes the life of a serious criminal, and prison cannot be far behind. 

The looting of family and friends often results in the loss of support from those closest to the addict, thus the user-addict’s only companions end up being fellow users.  Very few can break their drug habits, and their lives are irreversibly destroyed.

Ah, yes, the inevitable result of letting a terminally ill patient use medical marijuana that they can grow in their back yard and that has been recommended by their doctor.
At this point, Gary leaves the rational world … the rest of the way.

Pushing to legalize marijuana is the best evidence of the remarkable, deadly selfishness of your average, self-centered Liberal.  They know the above facts better than most because many of their close friends have become addicts, and their lives were destroyed. 

Yet selfish, self-centered Liberals don’t care about any of that – they just want their marijuana, cocaine, or whatever designer drug is in fashion.  What they won’t admit is that many cannot enjoy their sexual activities without using the drugs – this is the dirty little secret that nobody wants to talk about. The effects of marijuana and cocaine are often more powerful than Viagra.  The Liberal guy pushes drug use because everyone knows drugs sweep away a woman’s natural reluctance to behave like a barnyard goat.

Barnyard goat, you say? And your knowledge of how a barnyard goat behaves comes from….?
Hmmm… That Viagra spokesperson must have been one of them Liberals. You remember — that liberal with the fruity name who ran for President and lost?
Aldrich concludes with a display of alternative math, particularly since the federal government notes that 46.04% of the U.S. population have used an illicit drug in their lifetime:

Will the Supreme Court say “yes” to the use of marijuana in medical circumstances? If so, will the Liberals be satisfied?  Will the 80% of us who never used illegal drugs and never will, be allowed to continue to enforce laws that were created to maintain a civil, decent society?

It must be really annoying that 80% of those who live in Aldrich’s dream world have to be confronted by people who think Individual Freedom is for them, too.
Remember, that’s Gary Aldrich, founder and president of the Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty. (I suddenly hear Inigo Montoya’s voice: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”)