Drug WarRant

Alabama Marijuana Party’s Loretta Nall spoke on Saturday on the steps of the Alabama State Capital as part of a Freedom March, to focus attention on Alabama’s Habitual Offender law, harsh drug laws and prison overcrowding.
A small, but enthusiastic crowd apparently reacted very well to the speeches, at least until the cops came and shut the event down over controversy over the permit.
Read all about it here. Go to page 3 for pictures from the event.
Update: Video of the march available at POT-TV.

I want to take a moment to comment on a few recent political news items that aren’t specifically related to drug policy, but have undeniable drug policy implications.
“bullet” I Pledge Allegiance…
The House of Representative just passed a bill that says: “No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance . . . or its recitation.”
Now this is silly-season lawmaking. The House loves to pass these kinds of bills that they know the Senate will wisely squash, just so they can score political points.
But it’s bad law, and bad precedent.
In the drug reform community, we depend on every possible protection from government overreaching devised by the framers. For example, we cannot rely on the legislature. They have consistently worked against science and the will of the people when it comes to medical marijuana. So in addition to trying to change the law, we have to pursue other avenues — voter initiatives and court challenges, including the medical marijuana cases working their way to the Supreme Court regarding the federal government and the commerce clause.
Well, just suppose, due to the large campaign contributions from pharmaceuticals, Congress decided to pass a law stating:

“No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Controlled Substances Act . . . or its enforcement.”

Freedom depends on checks and balances on government power.
Regardless of your views regarding the Pledge of Allegiance, tell your Representative that you don’t appreciate them messing with traditional separation of the branches of government.
“bullet” Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism… Act
The Patriot Act is rearing its ugly head again via the newly formed Coalition for Security, Liberty and the Law (see National Review item.
The Coalition has prepared a letter about the Patriot Act, signed by a ton of important sounding people (although seeing William Bennett and Edwin Meese’s names was enough to lose any respect I might have had for the group). Their position:

we ask that no provision of the Patriot Act be allowed to expire and the temporary provisions be made permanent.

The rest of the letter has its share of distortions and outright lies.
As Hit and Run notes, the most hilarious line in the letter:

In passing the Act, Congress extensively debated the commonsense updates in the law and provided safeguards for civil liberties.

That one really had me rolling on the floor.
The Patriot Act has a few minor things in it that could be good. Overall, as a tool for fighting terrorism, it’s not that great. Most everything the country needed to fight terrorism it already had. Federal law enforcement didn’t need more tools — they just needed to focus on the problem rather than spending so much of their resources on the drug war.
There just wasn’t time before passing the Patriot Act to properly develop a set of tools specifically for fighting terrorism (heck, there wasn’t time to read it). The Patriot Act was primarily a Justice Department wish list that they already had lying around to give them more power and reduce the rights of the individual.
Already for decades, the federal government had worked tirelessly, chipping away at individual rights through the courts in the name of the drug war, always using the “compelling government interests” of “dangerous drugs” and “protecting children” but never being forced to prove that

1. their assertions were true
2. the drug war was the best way to solve the problem
3. the drug war even worked at all
4. the drug war didn’t actually increase the problem

Hence we got civil asset forfeiture, and no-knock warrants, and loosened restrictions regarding searches and evidence, and military-style attacks on our own citizens.. Remember what the 4th amendment used to look like?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Ah, those were the days. Freedom and democracy.
When Ashcroft promoted the Patriot Act, he said that we shouldn’t worry about it. It’s things we’re already allowed to do in the War on Drugs and we just want to add them to the War on Terrorism (why doesn’t that make me feel better?). Of course, if that’s true, the strange thing is that the Patriot Act has since been actually used for more drug convictions than terrorism convictions.
We must not give in to fear. We can be strong and resolute without giving up our rights. Ashcroft wants you to give them up.

It’s to fight the terrorists. Really. We won’t use the powers for inappropriate purposes. You’ll have nothing to worry about. Trust us, we’re the government.

“bullet” The Exquisite Cacophony of Freedom
Recently there’s been a lot of talk about the inappropriateness of government criticism. Some have gone so far as to equate criticism of government policies with treason or aiding the enemy. I find this troubling — in part, because I know it so well.
For decades, the drug policy reform community has operated under a virtual gag order because we’re at war — in the War on Drugs. Ordinary people have been afraid to question drug laws because they might be perceived as druggies. Even today, I have people tell me that they agree with me, but are afraid to speak up, and I’ve had readers email me from anonymous remailers because they’d lose their job if they were seen to be favoring drug policy reform. And I’ve had people tell me that I personally should be held responsible for the deaths of overdose victims, because of what I say on this blog.
It is dangerous (and should appear suspicious) whenever one group is so entrenched in their position that they don’t even want a different view to be heard, and are willing to make outrageous accusations to silence it.
During a June, 1999 Congressional Hearing, Rep. Benjamin A.æ Gilman, from upstate New York declared:

“[Legalization] cannot and ought not be any topic of serious discussion in our nation’s debate of the challenges of illicit drugs.”

In the same hearing, Rep.æBob Barr asked whether anti-racketeering laws could be used to prosecute people conspiring to legalize drugs.æ
It is not only my free speech right to speak out when I disagree with government policies; it is my responsibility as a citizen in a democratic society.

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

Drug War Chronicle reports about more bad mandatory minimum drug laws being proposed by Rep. Senselessbrenner in the House.
Past history has shown that this is an easy way to score points for being “tough.” Time after time, bad laws have been passed that have served to drastically damage our society.
However, this time it may not be so easy.

And the churches are beginning to come around. In addition to addressing the Tuesday press conference, the United Methodist Church, Progressive National Baptist Convention, Unitarian Universalist Association, and the Church of the Brethren Witness sent spokespersons to the Rayburn House Office Building to present their denominations’ official positions denouncing mandatory sentencing laws. But those denominations are not the only ones opposing mandatory minimums. The National Council of Churches, United Church of Christ, Evangelical Lutheran Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), Episcopal Church, and the Union for Reform Judaism also oppose mandatory sentencing laws, though they did not send representatives. Similarly, while the US Conference of Catholic Bishops is on record as opposing mandatory minimums, it did not send a representative because the conference has yet to take a position on either of the bills now before Congress.

“The nation’s leading religious organizations clearly recognize that mandatory sentencing laws are unjust and ineffective,” said Charles Thomas, executive director of the national Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative. “No denominations are known to support mandatory minimum sentencing. Can you think of any other issue on which the moral choice is so clear? Congress must defeat Rep. Sensenbrenner’s bill and pass Rep. Waters’ bill. It’s time to put on the brakes and turn toward justice and compassion.”

SSDP media director Tom Angell made a good catch. He saw a letter in the Metrowest Daily News talking favorably about drug testing in schools, did a little research, and discovered that the writer, Peter Cholakis, is President of Marketing for a drug testing product company! So Tom wrote a letter exposing Cholakis, which was followed by a letter from Cholakis exposing his own stupidity and illiteracy. Read the full letters at D’Alliance.

At Reason online, Hemp Industry on Fire — Exploding marketplace stoked by DEA lawsuit by Valerie Vande Panne

“Our thinking is that we’re in a can’t loose position,” David Bronner, president of Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps and primary funder of the HIA’s legal efforts, tells Reason. “If the government does appeal, it’s highly unlikely the Supreme Court will hear the case. If they do take it, it’s that much more free publicity for hemp food. If they don’t take it, we can focus on marketing and promoting hemp seed and fiber products. Every scenario plays in our favor.”

The hemp marketplace is already reflecting the publicity garnered by the lawsuit. “In the last year sales have been explosive,” Bronner continues, pointing to $10 million in year-to-date sales for the hemp food industry, nearly double what they were in 2003. And what’s the market outlook for 2005? “Sales will double again. It’s smokin’. People are hot for it.”

As the Food and Drug Administration warns pregnant and nursing mothers about high levels of mercury in fish and fish oil, hemp seed oil products are expanding, easily replacing fish as one of few significant sources of essential fatty acids.

It’s a very fascinating article, not only covering the government’s deadline in filing their appeal, but in the growth of commercial applications for hemp.
Hemp seed tastes great and has incredible nutritional value. If you’re interested, check out Alpsnack, Ruth’s Hemp Foods, or just Google Hemp Foods.

As reported here before, Alaskan courts are doing their part, ruling that possession of up to 4 ounces in the home is legal.
Now the voters will have the chance to take it a step further.
Initiative (pdf) summary:

This bill would do away with civil and criminal penalties for people 21 years or older who grow, use, sell, or give away marijuana or other hemp products. These products include hemp used for paper, fiber, food, fuel, medicine, or personal use in private. Marijuana could be regulated like alcohol or tobacco. State law could not stop doctors from prescribing marijuana. The bill allows for laws limiting marijuana use in some cases to protect public safety, and it allows laws to limit marijuana use in public. The bill would not nullify laws regulating marijuana use by minors.

The group proposing the change has learned some tough lessons from a past loss, and really has worked on framing the issue in a way that will attract voters. The group is called Alaskans for Marijuana Regulation and Control, also known as “Yes on 2”. Check out their TV ad. It’s not your hippie-pot-smoker-legalization-style-TV ad. And it looks like it just may work.
In today’s Anchorage Daily News: Marijuana legalization group tries a new strategy.
Pro-pot side offers ‘professional’ ads, well-chosen speakers

A group calling itself Yes on 2 has begun campaigning in earnest for a November ballot measure to legalize and regulate marijuana in Alaska and has a strategy different from what voters saw for a similar, unsuccessful initiative in 2000.

This time around, organizers are asking less of voters in an attempt to make the measure more appealing in the Nov. 2 election. They also have enlisted a more carefully selected group of spokespeople to help make their pitch, including a biomedical professor, a former high-ranking state corrections officer and a prominent Republican Party official.

The statewide campaign, which includes television and radio spots and a push to get supporters registered to vote by the Oct. 3 deadline, has some opponents worried.

“The legalizers have done a good job this time,” said former U.S. Attorney Wev Shea, who backed a 1990 initiative to criminalize pot in Alaska and was also a key spokesman against legalization in 2000. “Have you seen the commercials? … They’re really professional.”

Lots of professionals are involved in the initiative.

Dr. Tim Hinterberger, an assistant professor for the biomedical program at the University of Alaska Anchorage and a sponsor of Ballot Measure 2, said marijuana is widely recognized as being far less toxic than substances such as cocaine or alcohol. He said he has never heard of a case where someone died from a pot overdose. In terms of addictiveness, pot is more on par with caffeine, he said.

Of course, good old Alaskan Attorney General Greg Renkes said that laws forbid him from using his position to tell people how to vote, and then proceeded to do so.

Renkes challenged [Hinterberger’s] assertion too, saying pot is addictive and mind-altering and can lead to worse drugs. He called substance abuse “the most serious social issue facing the state,” noting that many crimes, injuries, deaths, as well as about 87 percent of incarcerations in Alaska are related to alcohol and drug abuse.

Alaska spends more money per capita on drug prevention and treatment than any other state in country, Renkes said. “This is a problem that we all share,” he said. “I’m offended by Outside money and Outside groups coming here and thinking that they can easily impact our laws.” [notice the capital Outside]

Stupid Drug Czar tricks
This leads to an amazingly absurd moment in the article. Naturally, a representive of the Drug Czar’s office stuck their nose in. This time, it was spokeswoman Jennifer de Vallance. She parroted the usual propaganda about “sending the wrong message.” And then the talk of funding came up.

David Finkelstein, treasurer of Alaskans for Marijuana Regulation and Control, said he expected Yes on 2 to spend “hundreds of thousands” of dollars on its campaign.

Well, this naturally outraged poor Jennifer. So she stepped up to her taxpayer funded propaganda job, wielded the ONDCP’s $11,000,000,000 propaganda budget completely funded by our taxes, and spewed:

“That’s a frustrating part of the drug legalization movement,” de Vallance said. “There is no well-funded political movement to keep our society safe.”

There’s been so much going on, it’s hard to keep up with it all, so here’s a quick round of stuff…
“bullet” Today’s Washington Post article on the increasing drug war: Russian Drug Unit Criticized Over Dubious Tactics, Priorities. This is an amazing article. Frightening. It’s also a reflection of our own DEA and ONDCP and Justice Department and Congress. Think of those while you read it. Baylen has commented on this story. (Thanks also to Alexander for the tip.) Vice Squad has been following the drug war in Russia for some time.
“bullet” Speaking of Vice Squad, slightly belated congratulations are due to Jim and the rest of the gang for their one year anniversary. They’ve been a wonderful, fun, and informative part of this corner of the blogosphere.
“bullet” Baylen points us to Paul Armentano’s article on the government’s drug war statistics. I couldn’t resist adding my own comment (based on the government’s actual statistics):

99.88% of people who have tried marijuana are currently NOT using heroin.

I guess this must be what the government means by the gateway theory.

So remember, if you want your kids to have better than a 99% chance of not being hooked on heroin, make sure they smoke pot. [just making a point]

“bullet” Radley Balko reporting on some amazing drug war stats from Eric Sterling:

1. In the last 20 years, the number of people who have died from overdoses of illicit drugs has doubled.
2. According to surveys of high school seniors, heroin and marijuana are more available to high schoolers today than they were in 1975.
3. In 29 years of those surveys, the number of high schools seniors answering that marijuana was “readily available” has never been lower than 85%.
4. The price of all illicit drugs has dropped almost every year for the last 30 years, while the purity of those drugs has gone up (oddly enough, the ONDCP admits as much in its new campaign against “crack marijuana”).
5. The drug trade is now worth an estimated $50 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars, up from $1 billion 25 years ago.
6. Last year, 1.6 million people were arrested for drug crimes, more than all violent crimes combined.
7. Every year, we arrest about 300,000 people for drug trafficking. Yet even after taking those offenders out of the trade (at least temporarily) we’ve still increased drug war spending every year since the onset of the drug war, to the point where last year we spent about $60 billion at the local, state, and federal level. It’s hard to think of a legal industry that thrives, even grows, despite losing 300,000 of its workers every year.
8. In 1986, the federal prison population stood at 36,000. Today, it’s at 180,000. Twenty-five years ago, the conbined state prison population stood at 250,000. Today, it’s at 2.1 million. One-fourth of those are drug offenders.

“bullet” I’ve been meaning to link to this post by Andrew at Caffeine Dreams. Very nice fisking of farkers’ view of mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients.
“bullet” I’ve been getting some nice letters from candidates who have received Drug WarRant endorsements.
Al Barger, Indiana Senate candidate writes:

Thanks for your endorsement for US Senate. Let me re-iterate that not only do I think the drug war is a bad idea, it is also flatly unconstitutional. As a candidate for federal office, there is absolutely NO authority under the US Constitution for the federal government to outlaw or regulate drugs. None.

Another note:

Thanks for the endorsement! Kevin Fleming Indiana District 4

And Jerry Kohn (Illinois Senate candidate) writes:

Pete,
Thanks for the endorsement on your blog.æ Perhaps in years to come, we will be able to convince more and more people of the insanity of the “war on drugs”.æ Our children will look back on the “war on drugs” era in the same way that our generation looks on the era of alcohol prohibition in the 1920’s – as a foolish mistake not to be repeated.æ Thanks again.

Nice notes. Means a lot to me.
Interesting that I’ve only heard from Libertarians so far, and I’ve endorsed a greater number of Democrats and Republicans. Not sure if it means anything. Are they just more polite? Or perhaps they’re just grateful to get any publicity, since the media so often neglects them. Or they actually feel politically OK acknowledging a drug policy endorsement, while the Dems and Repubs aren’t as comfortable about it. Or, they’re better at Googling.

Vice Squad and D’Alliance has covered it, and Bill at Peoria Pundit has been wondering what my take would be of this …

Mayor Daley on Tuesday embraced a police sergeant’s scheme to raise money for the city budget by ticketing people caught with small amounts of marijuana, but opponents are already taking shots at the controversial plan.

Daley emphasized that most charges involving small amounts of pot are thrown out in the state court system in Chicago.

“If 99 percent of the cases are all thrown out and you have a police officer going, why? Why do we arrest the individual, seize the marijuana, [go] to court and they’re all thrown out? It costs you a lot of money for police officers to go to court.

Oh, yes. As Bill says, it’s always about the money. Notice the throwaway sentence at the end of the next section:

Fraternal Order of Police president Mark Donahue acknowledged too many cases involving small quantities of marijuana are “pitched at the initial hearing.” But FOP members stand to lose thousands of dollars in court overtime if the city starts ticketing marijuana users instead of jailing them, he said.

Also, “it’s an issue of moral or societal acceptance whether to do that,” Donahue said.

Right.
Look, I’m all for the notion that people caught with marijuana shouldn’t have criminal records, and for reducing the clog on courts, but I’m not ready to endorse a scheme that is poorly designed.

“If they charge the same as a parking ticket, I think that’s OK,” said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the [Drug Policy] alliance.

But fines could create an incentive for officers to become more aggressive in busting pot smokers, which happened in Australia when fines were substituted for potential jail time, Nadelmann said.

And fines ranging from $250 for 10 grams of pot to $1,000 for 20 to 30 grams — which Donegan recommended in his proposal to top Chicago Police brass last week — would place a huge burden on the young and poor likely to get hit with most of the tickets, Nadelmann added.

So what happens when there’s a budget crunch and officers are instructed to increase their quota of marijuana fines?
My preference, of course, is legalization. If we’re looking for an intermediate step, I’d suggest the British route of downgrading and only arresting in “flagrant” cases or sales. It seems to be working well there.

A culture of cruelty has arisen in the medical establishment as patients who need medical pain management have come to be seen as agents of impending doom to those who would treat them. Physicians are prosecuted as drug dealers and patients who need opioids to survive are viewed with terrible suspicion, and subjected to every kind of humiliation and intrusion – that is, if they are lucky enough to find care at all.

This is the starting paragraph of a set of materials (532K Word Document) provided to those attending the Congressional Briefing on the Politics of Pain held this past Friday, which detailed some of the horrors that the war on drugs has visited on chronic pain.
The words above come from Siobhan Reynolds, President of Pain Relief Network, who was invited by American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists, Rep. Ron Paul, and Rep. John Conyers to speak at the briefing. She concluded:

By thinking we could regulate medicines with federal criminal law and not, thereby, the practice of medicine, we have as a society made a colossal error. The Founding Fathers gave a great deal of thought to the structure of the government of the United States of America, giving only certain limited powers to the federal government, reserving all others to the sovereign states. This was done specifically to protect us from the imposition of oppressive central authority, exactly what we, the people, have suffered here in spades.

The regulation of medicine in the states is protective of medicine and therefore of patients, and needs to be respected by us all.

We are calling upon the Congress to allow the American people to tell our side of the story and to defund the United States Department of Justice in its pursuit of medical professionals who treat pain.

The Montel Show yesterday, and this briefing last Friday, together demonstrate in striking ways that the government’s war on drugs is often being used (particularly by the federal government) as an unconstitutional and immoral war on the people.
On the Montel show it was made clear that harrassment of sick people has absolutely nothing to do with whether there is sufficient evidence of marijuana’s medical benefits. The pain briefing brought out the stories of doctors following acceptable medical practices who have been stripped of everything in DEA witch hunts and patients increasingly having trouble finding doctors willing to treat them.
President George W. Bush recently talked about his concerns with the high cost of malpractice insurance by stating that “Too many OB-GYNs aren’t able to practice their love with women all across this country.” And while I understand that there may be something important in those words (somewhere?), I would like to see a similar sense of outrage for the destruction of doctors who treat pain.
All of us face the possibility of a debilitating illness that requires proper pain management. Will your doctor, out of fear of the DEA, tell you to just deal with it and take some ibuprofen?
Radley Balko of The Agitator attended the briefing, interviewed a number of the people involved, and has reported on it in Doctors, Patients, Latest Drug War Casualties.

Fisher, a Harvard-trained physician, once specialized in the treatment of chronic pain.æHe served a predominantly rural and poor population in California.æAbout 5-10 percent of his 3,000 clients were pain patients, victims of illnesses like cancer, steep falls, or car accidents.

A little more than five years ago, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer initiated a high-profile campaign against pain doctors who prescribe high doses of opioidsæ– drugs such as Oxycontin, Vicodin and codeine.æ

Lockyer made Frank Fisher his example. Lockyer and other California prosecutors likened Fisher to a crack dealer.æThen, to a mass murderer.æFisher was charged with multiple counts of drug distribution, fraud, and most sensationally,æ15 counts of murder.æThe state seized his assets.æ His bail was set at $15 million and he faced a possible life sentence.

He was acquitted of all charges, but…

Frank Fisher is still a broken man.æHe spent five months in prison and paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.æHe has yet to get his assets back from the state of California, and he still faces the possible revocation of his medical license.æ

Read the whole thing.

The show I mentioned, is now available in RealAudio, thanks to the wonderful DrugSense.
Here’s the link: http://drugpolicycentral.com/real/csa/montel.rm
Quicktime version: http://cannabiscoalition.ca/temp/montel.mov
Powerful. Very powerful.
The Montel Show
Order your own video of the show — it’s worth having to show to family and friends. Call Burrelle’s Transcripts at 800-777-8398 and ask for “Marijuana: Illegal Drug or Medical Treatment? Sept. 21, 2004”