Drug WarRant

In the last couple of days, I’ve heard from several people regarding this Kansas revenue page on drug tax stamps.
This isn’t particularly new – 23 states have similar stupid laws (and Kansas has had theirs for 18 years). So I’m recycling a post from December when Missouri was considering such a tax:

Each gram of marijuana would be subject to a $3.50 tax.æ Other controlled substances would be taxed $200 for each gram or portion of a gram.æ For drugs not sold by weight, such as Ecstasy, every 50 doses would be taxed $2,000.

Note: for those of you who haven’t converted to metric yet, for marijuana that’s about $100 tax per ounce.
Keep in mind that this is not an easing of penalties — it is adding an additional penalty on top of criminalizing drugs. The idea is, once you’re arrested for possession of drugs, not only do you get the jail time and fines for the charge, but they also go after you for tax evasion because you probably haven’t bought the stamps (they don’t really expect you to).

A similar bill was passed in Kansas in 1987.æ Last year it collected $883,846 in revenue from people arrested in possession of drugs without stamps and $370 in stamp sales.

Most drug tax stamps are purchased by collectors, not drug dealers (the Texas one is quite entertaining).
These taxes are really a kind of dishonesty on the part of legislatures. If you want a tougher penalty for something illegal, then make that part of the legal penalty — don’t go around looking for some other hook.
Many of these taxes have run into legal trouble. Some of them have been termed unconstitutional due to the prohibition against self-incrimination. Others, if providing a serious enough penalty, have been determined to constitute double jeopardy (some Texas drug dealers in 1996 were getting off of their drug charges in court by putting a deposit down on their tax liability).
Protesters of an Iowa version of this tax came up with the memorable line:

No taxation without legalization.

One year ago today, I ventured forth in the land of blogs, thinking that I’d maybe write a post per week or so about the drug war. Considering this is post 497, I think I overshot my plans. It’s been a very full year, and seems longer. I had a reader, in fact, assure me that he has read my blog daily for 2-3 years, maybe more.
Certainly, it’s been a success beyond my wildest dreams. In one year, Drug WarRant has moved up to 21st in Salon Blogs popularity all-time, with close to 120,000 views. Got nominated for a Koufax. And I’ve found tremendous support from all areas in the political spectrum.
A huge thanks to all those wonderful folks in this crazy community who have been such a help (and I know I’m going to be leaving important ones out), including Libby, Jeralyn, Jeff, Walter, Sukoi, Patrick, Dave, David, Scott, Jim, Desert Cat, Serial Catowner, Brutal Hugger, Steve, Harmony, Baylen, Ben, Loretta, Elmer, Chris, disgusted vet, jackl, Matt, Matthew, Tad, Yan, Richard, and all the regular posters at MAP, SSDP, DPFIL, etc.
There were some light moments during the year, including

• If I Were Contrarian King of the United States
• Increase in Burger Abuse Seen
• Who is the Drug Czar? (humorous, but sadly true)

And there was some serious education going on, as these items have been spread widely across the internet.

• Why is Marijuana Illegal?
• Drug War Victims
• and to a lesser degree Frequently Asked Questions section

(If you haven’t read any of the above, you should.)
Other highlights of the year included taking on the DEA’s Karen Tandy and Michele Leonhart, covering the Hinchey amendment debates (in 2003 and 2004), The Great Debate, Clowns on C-Span and A Story for Thanksgiving.
What’s next? In addition to continuing to “look at the front lines of the drug war, with news, analysis, and the occasional rant,” I’m very much aware that this is an election year. Look for some detailed analysis of some of the smaller races, where the drug reform community can really make a difference. I’m going to be asking for your specific help in affecting the outcome of some elections. It’ll be fun! Drug WarRant will be endorsing candidates and getting readers to actively work for a few of them. More on this in a few days.
But right now, I thought I’d give you a one-year anniversary present. Some inspiring quotes that appeared on the pages of Drug WarRant during its first year. This is not a comprehensive list, nor does it follow any logical rules, but these are quotes from reformers, newspaper editors, judges, and others that appeared here. Taken together, they give you a sense that perhaps drug policy reform is not such a fantasy — that there are many people who recognize the faults of the drug war, and are willing to push for change.
Read “A Year of Inspirational Quotes”

My show opened last night. It went extremely well, with a modest, but enthusiastic audience. Looking at a full house tonight (it’s running until August 28, so you have plenty of chances to see it).
So while I’m in Chicago, I’ve got a little time this afternoon to catch up on drug news. (Nothing like a 12″ Powerbook with airport extreme, Starbucks with T-Mobile and some dark roast.)
“bullet” First stop is D’Alliance, where Baylen Linnekin has an excellent detailed analysis of the 9/11 report as it relates to drugs. A must read. Short version:

The U.S. mistakenly put its resources and focus into the drug war rather than anti-terrorism efforts, and there’s no evidence that al Qaeda got any financing through drug trafficking.

I’d say the federal government owes pot smokers an apology (on both counts).
“bullet” Baylen also links to one of the sickest stories I’ve heard recently.

The incident occurred late Wednesday at the Rainbow Bridge on the U.S.-Canadian border in Niagara Falls, after Customs and Border Protection officers confiscated marijuana from a male pedestrian.

Officer Robert Rhodes, mistakenly believing the Chinese woman standing nearby was involved, allegedly sprayed her with pepper spray, threw her against a wall, kneed her in the head as she knelt on the ground and struck her head on the ground while holding her hair, according to witnesses. …

“Subsequent investigation reveals (the victim) had nothing to do with the marijuana smuggling but was merely a tourist who happened to be in the area,” a supervisor’s affidavit said.

I’ll be watching to see if Rhodes gets some real (deserved) jail time, but how much you want to bet that the peaceful male pedestrian gets jail for having some pot, but the sadistic homeland security officer gets nothing for beating up an innocent tourist.
“bullet” Last One Speaks has this post on a DOJ memo telling librarians to destroy reference documents related to civil and criminal forfeiture procedures. I’d like to know more about what these documents contain and why the DOJ thinks they should be classified as internal documents only (particularly since forfeiture is used so horrendously in the drug war).
“bullet” Also check out this post about a judge who regularly threw out small possession cases (“Little bags of marijuana, I’m not trying those cases.”) including one involving less than a gram. The Pennsylvania appeals court, in a strange decision, is requiring that the cases be tried.
“bullet” Richard Lake of Media Awareness Project sent out a letter that I think demonstrates how the individual can and has made a difference in shaping new views on the drug war. Individuals, like those who read this site, are going to make the change happen. In his letter, he also references a wonderful editorial against the drug war in the newspaper of a very small town in Louisiana. I’ve posted Richard’s letter and the article here.

A big thanks to Scott, who sent me this surreal segment of a radio program. It’s a talk show in Canada (Bill Wood Show?) that was being guest hosted by Peter Warren. And the guest on July 19 was our own U.S. Minister of Disinformation — the Drug Czar John Walters himself.
Naturally, Walters prattled on with the usual talking points.

• High potency [which has not been linked in any way to any problems except by inference by the drug czar, but it sounds bad, and helps them promote the “This is not the pot you smoked in college” concept]
• High addiction/dependency rates of marijuana as demonstrated by treatment percentages [the usual misdirection, since the vast majority of those in treatment for marijuana are there because they’ve been referred by criminal justice, not because they’re having a problem (other than legal) with marijuana]
• Criminal involvement with producing and smuggling marijuana [a natural byproduct of criminalization]

Here are some of his quotes on the show:

“The high potency marijuna coming out of Canada is a particularly dangerous, dangerous substance. … This isn’t about, well, we have a different attitute about drugs, it’s about… the most dangerous threat, the single largest cause of addiction, and a more potent version of it now being produced and sent in multi billion dollar flows.”

Dangerous. He even said so twice in a row. And once later. Must be really dangerous.
He went on to say that he respected Canadians, that his father was Canadian, that he studied in Toronto, so he has nothing against Canada per se, but that he nevertheless had good reason to tell them how to handle their drug policy.

“The legitimate [U.S.] government policy [interest is] the fact that Canadian production of high potency marijuana is a business that– the majority of which by all available estimates is shipped to the U.S. — it is the single greatest drug threat. It’s twice as important a factor in addiction as cocaine. It’s vastly more important as a problem than methamphetamine or heroin.” [emphasis added]

Wow! I guess the message here is that you’d better switch to cocaine or meth or heroin. Good thing we’ve got a drug czar to set priorities and let us know where the real dangers lie.
He also said that the pot we used to smoke when we were in college years ago was only 1% THC, while now it can go as high as 29%. Of course that’s a complete exaggeration, even though it is true that the average potency of pot is significantly higher today (but it wasn’t generally 1% pot back then or nobody would have smoked it). Of course, part of the reason for higher potency pot is that it’s illegal, so higher potency means less bulk and easier smuggling. It also tends to have lower negative health effects (related to smoke and lungs) due to the fact that you smoke less to get the same “high.” And pot smokers DO self-regulate.
After Walters hung up, the host expressed some mild disagreement with Walters’ views and the callers were even more skeptical.
One caller (a pot smoker for 30 years) agreed that pot is more potent today. But he also noted that when he was younger, they’d roll joints as big as your thumb and smoke a bunch of them. Now they roll one the size of a knitting needle, smoke half, and put it away. He also used the analogy of beer and scotch. If you show up to a party and drink 30 ounces of beer, that might be considered OK, but if you show up and drink 30 ounces of scotch, that would be ridiculous. (Note: During alcohol prohibition, whisky became the standard in smuggling because it was much higher potency and didn’t take up as much room as beer.)
How does Walters get away with these constant outrageous statements? One, the mainstream media has not called him to account on any regular basis. By now, each time he sends out a press release, the reporters should send it back demanding documentation and clarification before printing a word he says. And two, the people have to help by demanding the truth from their newspapers and demanding oversight by their representatives, and quite frankly, demanding that Walters be removed from office.
Somebody also needs to ask why Walters attacks Canada so often, especially considering Mexico supplies 25 times as much marijuana to the United States.

Reported at Common Dreams with a related version on AP wire.

WASHINGTON – July 20 – In a pair of federal lawsuits to be filed on Wednesday, July 21, researchers charge the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, and National Institute on Drug Abuse with obstructing medical marijuana research in violation of federal law. They are joined in the legal action by patient Valerie Corral, co-founder of the Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM) in Santa Cruz, California, who uses marijuana to control epileptic seizures. …

On June 25, 2001, Lyle Craker, Ph.D., director of the Medicinal Plant Program at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, filed an application with the DEA for approval to establish a facility that would produce marijuana for U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved research. Currently, all marijuana for research in the U.S. must come from a crop grown on a NIDA-contracted farm in Mississippi. NIDA’s product has been only inconsistently available to researchers and is infamous for its low quality.

Three years later, the DEA has yet to act on the UMass application, even though it has the backing of U.S. Senators John Kerry and Edward Kennedy, who sent a letter of support to the DEA in October 20, 2003. Craker and the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), which would fund the UMass facility, charge that the DEA’s refusal to act on the proposal has caused an unreasonable delay in violation of the federal Administrative Procedures Act, making it impossible for MAPS to conduct studies that could lead to FDA’s approval of marijuana as a prescription drug.

“There is an urgent need for an alternative supply of marijuana for medical research,” Craker said. “Independent sources are allowed to produce other Schedule I drugs — including MDMA (ecstasy) — for research, but NIDA maintains a monopoly on research marijuana. Many researchers believe that NIDA’s monopoly is an obstacle to getting needed studies done on a timely basis.” The suit filed by Craker. MAPS, and Valerie Corral against the DEA notes that NIDA has refused to supply marijuana for at least two FDA-approved research protocols submitted by respected scientists, one for treatment of AIDS wasting syndrome and another for treatment of migraine headaches.

Steve Fox points out the gaping hole in the government’s position that there is not enough scientific evidence supporting medical use.

“This litigation is necessary because of the federal government’s obstructionism regarding medical marijuana research,” said Steve Fox, director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C. “The government regularly claims that if marijuana were really medicine, it would already have been approved by the FDA, and that more research is needed, yet they have not only failed to support medical research, they’ve actively obstructed it.”

The feds are starting to get it from all sides now. Nice to see. Hope the courts step up to the plate.

As I mentioned before, Brazil has been working toward getting back in the fun and adventurous business of shooting down planes — adventurous because you never know when you might hit one full of missionaries with a bad radio.
Martin over at Mediacrapola notes that Brazil has now cleared the legal hurdles and only has to wait 90 more days to start pumping hot lead into suspected drug planes. Check out Martin’s take on it.
Martin also saw, and comments on this horrendous piece from Reuters (or a version of it). Talk about Media Crapola! Vice Squad had a reaction as well.
What’s wrong with the article? Well, let me just mention a couple of little items:
Headline: Stronger pot may lead to reefer madness
And in the body:

Pot is no longer the gentle weed of the 1960s and may pose a greater threat than cocaine or even heroin…

The author, Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent for Reuters, has a boss, whose email address is editor@reuters.com
I wrote him. It’s easy. Why don’t you write him as well? Politely, of course.
Then again, some people liked the article.

Joel keeps getting me to link to his new book, but it’s worth it. His latest article at World News Daily titled “Kill zone” is excellent and draws more material from his new book.
The article deals with victims of the drug war, many of whom I’ve discussed on my Drug War Victims page. He mentions Clayton Helriggle, Alberta Sproul, and John Adams. He also talks about some that qualify, but didn’t make my Drug War Victims page simply because they lived.

On Nov. 20, 2002, for instance, three cousins — Salvador Huerta, Marcos Huerta and Vicente Huerta, all young men who worked at a San Antonio restaurant — were sitting around their apartment after work watching TV. Around 8 p.m. a dozen SWAT officers invaded the home, firing tear gas, allegedly shouting profanities and violently beating two of the men.

“We were kicked and punched at least 20 times,” said Salvador, who suffered a broken front tooth and a swollen face. Marcos’ face was cut and his head bruised. Vicente, the lucky one, didn’t stick around for his. He lit off instead of taking the boot. After a vain search for drugs and guns, the police realized they were at the wrong apartment. According to the San Antonio Express-News, “police apologized several times and went five apartments down and arrested two people. …”

He also talks about the problems I’ve noted here many times before — military-style tactics in police engagements:

The problem goes back to the metaphor itself. War and policing are vastly different. In common parlance the military’s job is to kill people and break things. As Reagan administration Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb puts it, soldiers are supposed to “vaporize, not ‘Mirandize.'” On the other hand, police are trained to solve problems with scrupulous attention to suspects’ civil rights and with a multitude of solutions, lethal violence being the last rung on the escalating ladder of force. No-knock raids race up the ladder, going straight to the threat of lethal force.

Some police chiefs recognize the contradiction in roles and the danger of mixing them. “I was offered tanks, bazookas, anything I wanted,” said Nick Pastore, former police chief in New Haven, Conn. Pastore said he “turned it all down because it feeds a mindset that you’re not a police officer serving a community, you’re a soldier at war.”

It’s an excellent article. Take a moment and read the whole thing. This is an important issue in the drug war and we need to make sure everyone hears about it.
I want to take a moment to thank those readers of Drug WarRant who have spread the word about Drug War Victims. A number of you have given a link to it on discussion boards, and suddenly I’ll have several hundred new viewers to this page, many of whom thought drug policy reform was only about a bunch of stoners who wanted to smoke pot legally. They read about the victims and respond “That is really f*#%ed up!” They get outraged and want to do something about it. That’s what we need — tell people to read Joel’s book or his article. Tell them to visit my page. Get them upset. They need to be upset.
(Thanks to Patrick)

Today’s Los Angeles Times reports: State PTA Backs Ban on Random Drug Testing

Across America, the PTA has long fought to prevent student drug use, but last month its California leaders found themselves sparring with federal drug officials in the state Capitol.

The two sides squared off in an Assembly hearing over a bill that would outlaw “suspicionless” drug testing. A handful of schools in California and nationwide have begun testing students without any evidence of drug use, and the PTA opposes it.

“As parents, we’re certainly concerned about addressing issues of student drug abuse,” said Kathy Moffat, a spokeswoman for the California State PTA. “But a random drug-testing program implies there is no trust.” …

With more than 1 million parent, teacher and student members, the state PTA also opposes zero-tolerance policies under which students can be removed from school for any violation of drug rules. The organization sees its effort to block random drug testing as another way to protect children.

PTA officials say the money used to conduct random drug tests would be better spent going after root causes of substance abuse with education and treatment.

Opponents also fear that arbitrary tests could discourage students who take birth control pills, antidepressants or other prescription medications from participating in activities that require students to accept random drug testing. …

In June, state Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer came out in support of the Vasconcellos legislation because, he said, suspicionless testing violates constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure. Planned Parenthood and the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People also support the proposed testing ban.

In 2003, a University of Michigan study of 76,000 students in eighth, 10th and 12th grades suggested that school drug tests did not affect rates of illicit drug use. The fear of testing positive did not appear to discourage new users from trying drugs.

Certainly California is one state that is not going to just bend over and accept the Drug Czar’s dictates. It’s nice to see an organization like the PTA (which certainly cannot be accused of not caring about the welfare of children) oppose the wrongheaded policies that come out of the ONDCP. They know. Mandatory testing is wrong.
Some even see the hypocrisy. One mother quoted in the article noted that “she found it curious that the athletic department would test for recreational drugs, but not for performance enhancers such as steroids.”
No, mandatory drug testing is not about students or reducing drug use. It’s about creating another campaign in the failed drug war that’s profitable to the warriors.
(Thanks to Richard Lake with the always helpful MAP for the heads up.)

Today’s Dallas News editorial had some welcome strong words about the investigation into the fake drugs scandal.

Nearly three years have gone by since authorities acknowledged that more than two dozen defendants had been falsely arrested and held in jail for possessing not cocaine but ground-up pool chalk. The scandal wrecked countless lives, including those of the defendants and their families š most of them Mexican immigrants.

We’re counting on the city’s investigative body š which is made up of two private lawyers and a team from the Dallas Police Department š to produce a clear, detailed and thorough report that spells out the role that the department’s personnel and procedures played in the scandal.

Already it is clear that accounting controls and oversight of the narcotics unit were nowhere near adequate. We expect city officials to acknowledge and correct the flaws, regardless of how sweeping the needed reforms may be.

This kind of travesty must never be allowed to happen again. …

We need to get to the bottom of what happened, and the city has every right to dig and dig until it hits the floor š no matter how much dust is kicked up in the process.

Exactly.

Baylen over at D’Alliance, the new blog at the Drug Policy Alliance, has been on a tear this week.
“bullet” An interesting, if depressing, look at Kerry’s drug war connections.
“bullet” Yet another new taxpayer program from the Drug Czar.
“bullet” Check out Baylen’s review of “Saving Grace” at AlterNet.
“bullet” Be sure to read Ineffective, expensive drug war rages on by Randall G. Shelden in the Las Vegas Mercury. An extraordinary point-by-point critique of the drug war.