Drug WarRant

The Drug Czar’s office has given out yet another self-congratulatory press release: New Survey Shows More Teens Recognize Harms of Marijuana: Exposure and Effectiveness of Anti-Drug Advertising Continues to Rise.
This comes from their release of the Partnership Attitude Tracking Study (PATS), which has become the method by which the ONDCP has decided it should be evaluated, ever since it kept getting negative results from independent studies.
PATS is generated by the Partnership for a Drug Free America, which is essentially a private arm of the Drug Czar’s office. The Drug Czar gets tons of taxpayer money to run advertising which gets special consideration and rates in the media, while the Partnership raises money to produce spots and run surveys that say the spots are working, which justifies bigger budgets for the Drug Czar.
Here are some of the results of the survey (pdf):

Teens in 2003 were significantly more likely than in 1998 to say there is a “great risk” of getting in trouble with the law, losing their driver’s license, missing out on the good things in life, not getting into a good college, becoming a dealer, acting stupidly and foolishly, getting depressed, becoming lazy, being lonely, becoming boring, getting hooked on marijuana, and driving dangerously.

Additionally, the study claims the most important result for future funding — showing positive results, yet still more work to do:

The PATS study also shows a steady decline in teen marijuana use since 1998. Despite these reductions in youth drug use, marijuana remains the most commonly used illicit drug among youth.

To understand this “study” better, let’s take a look at the Partnership that runs it. According to their mission:

The Partnership for a Drug-Free America (PDFA) exists to help kids and teens reject substance abuse by influencing attitudes through persuasive information. Our mission unfolds primarily in the form of a research-based national advertising campaign, now in its 17th year.

In other words, the results of the survey they are running determine whether their existence is justified. Can you say “conflict of interest?” I knew you could. In addition, since they depend on all the taxpayer supplied advertising dollars from the Drug Czar, they have additional incentive to insure good results.
Any other incentives? Well let’s look at the corporate and foundation support to the Partnership. Let’s see… in the $25,000 and above category, we have: Bayer Corporation, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, Consumer Healthcare Products Association, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Kimberly-Clark Foundation Inc., Novartis Consumer Health, Inc., Perrigo Company, Pfizer Foundation, Inc., Pharmacia Corp., The Procter & Gamble Fund, Schering-Plough Corporation, Wyeth/ Wyeth Consumer Healthcare. Recognize a pattern?

The full report itself is a joke in terms of scientific approaches to surveys (and reporting the results).
The report neglects to discuss the methodology or specific questions (although the use of some leading statements are obvious through the results shown, and we learn that the Partnership specifically was involved in creating the questions). The report itself is a piece of propaganda.
Check out the hyperbole in the intro:

No other organization in the country –
commercial, non-profit or governmental
– has the rich insights into consumers
and drugs that PATS has captured in its
16 installments.

Rich insights? Oh, come on.
Now this is supposed to be a formal detailed report showing the results of the study. Yet peppered constantly throughout the report are statements like:

Ecstasy can cause severe dehydration, seizures and strokes. It can cause dramatic increases in body temperature and can lead to muscle breakdown, which can cause kidney failure. It can lead to liver and cardiovascular failure, which have been reported in some of the Ecstasy-related fatalities….For more information on Ecstasy go to www.drugfreeamerica.org and visit the Drug Resource.

These are ads for the Partnership! The constant drug warrior statements throughout the study make it impossible to take seriously.
I was interested to note that they included questions about the internet. They asked “How often do you go to websites that encourage illegal drug use?” and “How often do you go to websites that discourage illegal drug use?” Hmmmm… How would they classify Drug WarRant? They don’t have a question for “How often do you go to websites that tell the truth about the drug war?”
The Drug Czar needs to be held accountable. And telling us that his mistress thinks he looks good doesn’t count.

Despite a staggering loss in the last attempt in Nevada to legalize marijuana, a new attempt is being made (this is legalization, not decrmininalization or medical use). As the Las Vegas Review Journal notes in this article, the organizers have learned from the last attempt.

You could be excused for thinking that the Committee to Regulate and Control Marijuana was formed only to “establish a comprehensive system of strict regulation to reduce or eliminate teenage access to marijuana, driving under the influence of marijuana, and the smoking of marijuana in public places.” After all, it sounds strict.

But read further, and you’ll get to the heart of the matter: If the committee’s proposed state constitutional amendment passes, those age 21 or older will be allowed to toke up, so long as they do it in private, buy the drug only at an authorized retailer and don’t drive under the influence.

The new approaches have been designed to address every objection (real or imagined) brought up during the last campaign (and there were some ugly challenges). But they’ll still have a battle:

And two, if the prohibitionists were willing to stretch the truth to their own ends last time, they’re not suddenly going to play fair this time.æ There will still be lies, exaggerations and the inevitable visit of drug czar John Walters, campaigning at taxpayer expense.æ But the Committee to Regulate and Control Marijuana still has the right idea, no matter the changes made to persuade voters that prohibition doesn’t work.

Maybe this time, the voters will see that.

The Chronicle of Higher Education has a good overview article on Ricaurte’s false ecstasy studies.

The fallout from the mistake has brought not only Dr. Ricaurte’s reputation into question, but also that of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which has supported his research for years. “It kind of gives science a black eye because people start to question whether NIDA has an agenda,” says Glen R. Hanson, a professor of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Utah and a former director of NIDA.

It’s a good analysis of the situation in a publication that is widely read in the academic world, with some nice digs into the drug warriors:

“I’m now convinced that any information coming out of the government is suspect,” says Ms. Rosenbaum, who is a staff member at the Drug Policy Alliance, which opposes current drug policy. …

“We’ve got megamillions going into the demonization of Ecstasy,” Mr. Doblin says, “and all we need is $5-million to do the clinical trials that will be necessary to provide the data to decide if this drug will be a helpful medicine to many, many people.”

This comes to me via Brutal Hugs and Mark Kleiman, both of whom have interesting posts on the subject.
I was particularly interested in Brutal Hugs’ take on the issue of the importance of better knowledge, as opposed to blanket drug war condemnation, as an necessary form of harm reduction:

If you shouldn’t do several hits of ecstasy every night of Burning Man, can you do three Monday, some acid Tuesday and shrooms on Thursday? If so, where do you schedule the mescalin, the salvia and the meth? And what about the weird drugs with cryptic names you’ve never heard of? Should you take the gelcap filled with brown powder that somebody told you is called Care Bear 53? How about the pill stamped with a skull called “Fuck Me God”?

These questions seem funny, but they’re actual questions people face. And in the absence of answers, they’re just going to wing it. And a bunch of them will mess themselves up. We do honest research into the health implications of all kinds of potentially dangerous recreational activities– from smoking to motorcycling to eating junk food to backpacking in Africa. Drugs are dangerous, but that’s no reason not to find out how to minimize the dangers.

The education system in England seems a bit more skeptical of climbing in bed with the drug warriors based on some of these reactions in Monday’s Sun:

RADICAL plans for random drug-testing in schools triggered a furious backlash from teachers last night.

Premier Tony Blair has urged heads to put pupils through urine tests and to allow sniffer dogs to patrol corridors.

But teachers’ leaders believe the controversial move is doomed to fail.æ They said staff should not be saddled with the task of rooting out drug takers.æ And they fear it could lead to teachers being sued by parents over human rights abuses.

Meanwhile experts warned testing could backfire — by driving drug use among youngsters underground.

But while the teachers in England have some sense, The Sun has shown its stupidity by actually believing the lies of our drug warriors:

Figures from America show testing there has dramatically slashed drug abuse by pupils.

President Bush claimed drug users had been cut by 400,000 in a pilot scheme across 1,000 schools.

Oh, give me a break. Considering the only reputable study has actually shown no difference between those who tested and those who don’t, I have no clue where The Sun, or John Walters’ boss, got those completely fabricated numbers.

Link

Tony Blair was tonight facing a wave of opposition from across the teaching profession over his plans for random drugs testing in schools.

The move – which could see sniffer dogs in classrooms and pupils being ordered to give urine samples – was greeted with a mixture of confusion and dismay.

Robyn E Blumner of the St. Petersburg Times writes an outstanding column about how drug warriors are so afraid of the truth, that they continually resort to censorship.

The beauty of Jefferson’s marketplace of ideas is that it opens our society to all voices and all arguments, presuming the most persuasive will rise to the top.

But those who promote the War on Drugs find this a dangerous concept. Drug reform makes too much sense and in recent years has been too compelling to voters….

To combat this outbreak of common sense, the drug warriors have fought back with antidemocratic and repressive methods….

And now Congress has just approved a law blatantly censoring pro-drug reform messages. …

So once again those who favor a less militant approach to the nation’s drug war – and only want the freedom to make their case to the public – have been forced to trot back to federal court to secure their First Amendment rights….

This is not about upholding the law, but fighting a movement. The drug warriors are fiercely antagonistic toward the shift in public opinion on medical marijuana and other drug reforms; and their authoritarian impulse is to shut down the free marketplace of ideas.

Apparently, the competition is getting to be a bit too stiff.

The whole thing is worth a read.

From today’s Herald Palladium in Michigan.

SOUTH HAVEN — Facing a misdemeanor marijuana possession charge, South Haven High School’s assistant principal, Pat Conroy, resigned Friday, Schools Superintendent Dave Myers said…

In his police report, South Haven Deputy Police Chief Tom Martin said Conroy told him that last year he placed some of the marijuana from his office in the locker of a male high school student he strongly suspected was a drug dealer. He said he was hoping the drugs would be found during a police dog search of the school and would lead to the boy’s expulsion.

The plan didn’t work, because the drug dog did not pick up the scent of the marijuana during the search, Conroy told police.

What are we doing to kids today? I remember High School. It included having some very traumatic growing pains and socializing issues that felt like the end of the world. And yet, I didn’t have to pee in a cup, or have lock downs while dogs sniffed my book bag, or have an Assistant Principal frame me for drugs. I seem to remember having an asshole Assistant Principal (I think that was in the job description), but I never worried about this.
So, Mr. Drug Czar, what message are we sending to our kids?
This drug war is obscene.

Update: More on the story in the comments.

Jacob Sullum at Reason has a great article about the ACLU lawsuit against the feds.

Istook’s willingness to so blatantly violate the First Amendment plays into the hands of his opponents, who portray it as a sign of the drug warriors’ intellectual bankruptcy and political desperation. “The message that marijuana prohibition has failed is so powerful,” declares Steve Fox of the Marijuana Policy Project, “that the only way the federal government can think of to combat it is by stopping us from communicating with the public.”

Although Joseph White says he was “stunned” by Istook’s amendment, he adds, “We are grateful to Congressman Istook for bringing these issues so clearly to the forefront.” Says Ethan Nadelmann, “We think Congressman Istook’s crass proposal will likely accelerate the pace of reform. For this we thank him.”

With enemies like Istook, who needs friends?

The federal civil lawsuit regarding the death of Drug War Victim John Hirko is wrapping up. Earlier coverage is here.
The Morning Call has been covering the story:

The case is likely to go to the jury for deliberations today after U.S. District Judge James Knoll Gardner finishes explaining the relevant laws to the jury. …

The jury will be asked whether police used excessive force when they shot the suspected drug dealer 11 times, accidentally set fire to his home and forced his fiancee to escape from a second-floor window. Hirko died in April 1997 as the police SWAT team stormed the South Side home to search for drugs

I received this message today:

John Hirko was my friend..my friend for yrs before this all came about. He was a wonderful, intelligent person who didn’t deserve this. Although I do not disagree nor did I approve his involvement with drugs, I know for a fact that he would have never shot at an officer (he didn’t have a criminal background). I believe this was a phase that he would have certainly grew out of. I definitely think a form of punishment other than DEATH would have helped facilitate this. Seven years after his death I still cannot get over how he has been portrayed to justify his homicide. It sickens me.

– Marylou

A couple of months ago, I discussed the idiotic and constitutionally challenged Oklahoma Representative Ernest Istook who didn’t like the fact that Change the Climate was running ads on the Metro calling for the legalization of marijuana. So he pushed for a last-minute provision on the omnibus spending bill that would prevent any transit system from accepting ads that promoted changing the laws regarding marijuana. And it passed. And was signed into law.
Now this is so completely and absolutely a violation of the constitution that it’s almost funny, yet it became law.
Fortunately, we have a number of active Drug Policy Reform organizations and none of them are taking this lightly. The day the law went into effect, four of these organizations attempted to purchase space for this ad in the DC transit system:

One in three adult Americans have tried marijuana and federal marijuana laws can imprison every one of them just for simple possession. These laws are unfair and abuse our criminal justice system. Prosecuting and jailing these Americans wastes valuable resources better spent keeping violent criminals off our streets. As it is, hundreds of thousands of citizens have already been imprisoned – many of them non-violent, otherwise law-abiding and many of them stripped of their right to vote, their property, their jobs and their college grants. Let’s adopt common sense and fairness and enact more realistic marijuana laws. And let’s save the jails for real criminals. Get involved today.

As expected, the ad was rejected due to the new provision from Congress.
So today, the following distinguished organizations jointly announced a lawsuit against the federal government and the DC transit system (the links go to the organizations’ pages about the lawsuit):

• ACLU
• Marijuana Policy Project
• Drug Policy Alliance
• Change the Climate

The suit is called ACLU v. Mineta. Remember that name — I guarantee you’ll be hearing a unanimous verdict and it won’t be in favor of the feds. This is a no-brainer.
In fact, reading the Memorandum of Plaintiffs in Support of Their Motion for Preliminary Injunction (pdf), you can almost detect undercurrents of glee in the coalition’s case:

The material facts are not in dispute and the constitutional infirmities raised by Section 177 are neither complex nor subtle. Section 177 is unconstitutional, both on its face and as enforced by WMATA, a state actor.

The attorneys for the coalition are going to have fun with this one. (Remember though that lawsuits aren’t cheap — consider donating to one or more of the organizations.)
Violation of Oath
I have often felt that Congress has gotten off without any sanctions despite violating their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Particularly when you consider that the First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It doesn’t say: “Congress shall make unconstitutional laws in order to make a political statement and then let the courts straighten it out.”
Now this unfortunately happens all the time, but rarely has there been a case this blatant. Just in case there was any doubt in your mind that these Congressmen actually intended the provision to silence the free speech rights of citizens, check out the statement that they arrogantly printed in the conferees report:

The conferees note with displeasure that public service advertising space in Washington, DC’s Metropolitan Area Transit Authority rail stations and buses has been used to advocate changing the nation’s laws regarding marijuana usage. WMATA has provided $46,250 worth of space to these types of ads; therefore, as a warning to other transit agencies, the conferees have deleted funding totaling $92,500 from projects and activities for WMATA in this bill…

…the conferees remain concerned that the opportunity exists nationwide for transit properties to run similar advertising. Therefore the confererence agreement includes a provision (Section 177) that prohibits Federal transit grantees from obligating or expending funds that would otherwise be available in the Act, if the grantee is involved directly or indirectly with any activity, including displaying or permitting to be displayed advertisements on its land, equipment, or in its facilities, that promote the legalization or medical use of substances listed in schedule 1 of section 202 of the Controlled Substance Act.

Istook, and the other conferees involved, should be impeached and removed from office.