Drug WarRant

I have regularly ranted here about the Drug Czar’s favorite lie — that the increased high percentage of people in treatment for marijuana is proof of the danger of the drug and its dependency potential. Check out this Walters interview on C-Span, for example, where he says:

Today, of the 7 million people we have to treat for drug abuse, 60% are dependent on marijuana, and yet people, baby boomers on down, somehow believe that marijuana doesn’t produce the same kind of dependency… It’s the single largest cause of treatment need in the country by a factor of 2. The second most significant cause is cocaine…The fact is, we know why this is happening. Marijuana potency, the THC the psychoactive ingredient has gone from 1% in 1980 to an average of 7% nationally, and we now have varieties that go up to 20-30%…

I debunked his statement fairly thoroughly then, but check out this new report by way of the Drug Policy Alliance::

Countering bogus claims by White House Drug Czar John Walters that hundreds of thousands of marijuana addicts are flocking to drug treatment, a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reportæshows that 82.5% of people seeking treatment for marijuana – a stunning majority – are doing so only because of government coercion. The report shows that many of those in treatment for marijuana do not enter because of problems with the drug but because they are first-time offenders arrested for marijuana possession who have been given the option by a judge or drug court to choose drug treatment or jail.

82.5%. Not only is this an indictment of the Drug Czar’s lies, but it’s proof that we are wasting treatment slots on marijuana users who don’t need treatment.

The Morning Call has the details, including the extraordinarily complex verdict sheet which still has many of the questions unanswered.

Kristin Fodi, Hirko’s fiancee, and Gwendolyn Dashner, his mother, won key points on Hirko’s behalf following a botched 1997 drug raid in which the 21-year-old Hirko was killed and his residence set on fire. Fodi escaped the house through a second-floor window.

Perhaps the most significant finding in the 58-question verdict sheet was the pronouncement that Officer Joseph Riedy, who fired the fatal shots at Hirko, was found to have used excessive force.

There’s still a lot more to be determined in this case. Some of my past reporting on it can be found here and here and on the Drug War Victims page.
I just received a series of comments regarding the decision on an old post as people seem to be looking for a place to comment on the decision. First from Lou:

Joe Riedy is a long time friend of mine who I shoot with regularly. Joe trained intensely for these type situations, and when drug dealer Hirko presented a weapon, I know a squeeze from a full-auto MP5 produces fatal results. Joe was there on scene as part of the “high risk” team to protect the other law enforcement. I cannot believe this dirt bag attorney won this case. A sad day for jurys, law enforcement. Wait until someday someone needs an officer to draw a weapon, and they “stay back where it is safe and you are on your own”.

Then…

This type of situation did not warrant a full auto MP5. 4 days before police gained access to the home with a simple knock. Justice was served today. I hope the next time an officer decides to draw a weapon, they’ll think twice about shooting someone 11 times in the back.

And then…

In reference to the comment above, to whom ever wrote it. I hope when you need a Cop that their is not one around!!!!! Wife of a Cop

I understand from the perspective of officers involved in such cases that it can be hard to be told that what you were doing to protect your fellow officers was wrong. And in reality, the problem goes back a step further. The notion that military-style assaults and MP5 weapons and flash grenades are the proper approach to deal with marijuana — that’s what’s outrageous.
Our drug laws and our tactics for dealing with drug laws are endangering both our citizens and our police. The function of police is to protect and serve the citizens, not act like an occupying military force. There is no excuse for that kind of force as a standard operating procedure. And there is no excuse for bad drug laws that encourage such techniques.
It’s time to stop the violence on both sides and reform the drug laws.

LastOneSpeaks has the story:

It seems 21 soldiers in Iowa, who served our country in Iraq, will be dishonorably discharged when they return home after their tour of duty for failing a drug test before they were shipped out.

This editorial in the Des Moines Register gives more details:

Twenty-one Iowa soldiers who tested positive for drugs last year were sent to the Middle East anyway. The Guard didn’t get the test results back before they left. Then the offending troops were under federal command and “gaps in regulations” allowed the soldiers to stay and fight. Apparently these troops were sober enough to do the job, because the military kept them month after month in the hot desert instead of sending them home.

The former drug use wasn’t a problem when the U.S. government had them out there dodging suicide bombers in Iraq.

Now circumstances have changed. The troops are coming home. Guard leaders are notifying commanders steps will be taken to discharge those soldiers with positive drug results “other than honorably.” It’s unclear exactly what this will mean for soldiers, but it makes one wonder what the policy-makers have been smoking.

Are we nuts? If someone’s going to go to a foreign land to fight and die for us, we should be offering them a range of safe and delightful mind-altering drugs for them to enjoy before they ship out. But no, we have zero tolerance (that’s for sure!) Hell, these kids aren’t even allowed to drink. I can picture it now…

All right soldiers. Your unit has been called up and you’re shipping out to Iraq, where you’ll be facing suicide bombers and snipers and horrible conditions. You may not return alive. Go home. Say goodbye to your mother and father. Go out for your last night of freedom and have… a Grape Nehi.

So we had some soldiers who succumbed to the temptation — hell they probably had an easier time (at their age) getting drugs than liquor — of drowning their sorrows or enjoying a fling before they left. And they were deemed capable of being our fighters — of supporting their fellow soldiers — of representing our nation. But now they have served their country, and now that it’s convenient, we toss them away like pieces of trash — without honor.

David, of the very excellent What Would Dick Think? pointed out that our Drug Czar held an online chat today and I missed it!
My chance to submit questions is gone – ah, the grilling I would have given him. But would he have answered them? Are you kidding? Take a look at the questions he answered. Must have been thousands of questions in order for Walters to have been able to hand-pick 13 complete softballs like these, and he still lied. Chat? Yeah, in the same way that Penthouse Letters are actually letters.
As I’ve said before, I’m ready and willing to debate John Walters about the drug war. Any time. Any place.

Just a day after the Chicago Tribune made a strong volley for medical marijuana, they published this outstanding OpEd by Steve Chapman: MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND ITS WITLESS ENEMIES: Anti-Drug Advocates Continue to Ignore Credible Science.

Luckily, there is a well-established and safe remedy recommended by many cancer physicians that sometimes provides relief when nothing else can.æ Not so luckily, the remedy is marijuana.æ Under federal law, cannabis is forbidden–even for therapeutic use by seriously ill people who have no more interest in getting high than they do in bungee jumping.æ The Bush administration, in its generosity, is willing to let these patients have any medicine except the one they need.æ

In the campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, John Kerry and John Edwards often sound nearly indistinguishable on the issues.æ But when it comes to medical marijuana, there is plenty of space between them.æ Edwards sounds like President Bush, while Kerry has dared to suggest that the established federal policy has been a grave mistake.æ

Under the Carter administration, the federal government recognized the medical potential of cannabis and set up a “compassionate use program” that not only allowed some patients to use pot but gave them a supply.æ This humane concession, however, didn’t survive the first Bush administration, which slammed the door on new patients.æ

Anyone expecting better from Bill Clinton, that child of the ’60s, was doomed to disappointment.æ The president who didn’t inhale made sure no Republican could portray him as soft on drugs.æ His administration refused to change federal policy and vehemently crusaded against state measures legalizing medical marijuana.æ

The current Bush administration has been equally horrified by the idea that marijuana could be anything but evil.æ Not long after the Sept.æ 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when you might have thought the Justice Department had more urgent priorities, federal agents continued raiding “cannabis clubs” that furnish pot to patients whose doctors have prescribed it, in accordance with state law.æ

As if it weren’t enough to dictate what goes into patients’ mouths, U.S.æ Atty.æ Gen.æ John Ashcroft also took it upon himself to dictate what could come out of doctors’ mouths: The administration made it illegal for physicians to prescribe or even discuss marijuana with their patients as a treatment.æ …

Bush and Edwards want to continue a vindictive policy that ignores the experience of medical professionals, shortchanges science and treats suffering people as criminals.æ

It’s enough to make you ill.

It is clear that between Kerry and Edwards, the Kerry is the choice when it comes to medical marijuana. However, even that position needs strengthening. After all, when Bush was running for President, his statement on medical marijuana was: “I believe each state can choose that decision as they so choose.” That notion disappeared fast in his administration.
The only candidate for the Democrats this year who is unambiguously in favor of full medical marijuana rights is Dennis Kucinich. Drug WarRant has endorsed Dennis and I continue to encourage you to vote for him in the primaries. Every bit that he gets in the primaries helps his issues to get a hearing at the convention.
And if you’re voting Republican in the primaries, write in the name Blake Ashby.

Earlier this week, Andrea Barthwell of the Drug Czar’s office had an OpEd piece in the Chicago Tribune attacking medical marijuana that I fairly thoroughly attacked here.
It turns out that, while the Tribune is willing to let Andrea spout off on their pages, they apparently are not taken in by her propaganda. In an editorial today, they made the point very clear.

Different people respond differently to the same treatments, which is why treatment decisions are better made in doctors’ offices than in police stations. …æ

On this, the public appears to be way ahead of the legislators.æ A 1998 poll by the Center for Governmental Studies at Northern Illinois University found 67 percent of Illinois residents believe “doctors should be allowed to prescribe small amounts of marijuana for patients.” …

Americans have taken a nuanced approach, according to polls.æ Most support legalizing marijuana for the ill, but not for other use.æ With that, the public shows admirable thoughtfulness on this issue.æ So should legislators.

To add insult to their failure to toe the Drug Czar’s line, the Trib also printed a long letter (right next to the editorial), which responded to Barthwell’s OpEd.
This, along with the earlier Sun Times piece, now means that both major Chicago newspapers have endorsed medical marijuana in Illinois!
Hat tip to Richard Lake and the always incredibly useful Media Awareness Project.

The Drug Czar went to Akron to try to score some child urine. But local officials are skeptical of the push for drug testing.

The superintendent suggested that perhaps the Bush administration should test itself before requiring the same of students.

This is when our Drug Czar proudly showed his credentials:

Walters said some federal officials are being tested, including employees in his office, certain people under the president and vice president, and federal law enforcement officers.

“Nobody likes taking a drug test,” he said.

The drug czar himself was tested before assuming his post.

He passed.

So Walters can pass a drug test. I’d rather he be able to pass a Constitution test. Or an intelligence test. Or a Social Studies and American History test (perhaps covering the prohibition era).
Of course, when it comes to our students, the Drug Czar would rather have them pass urine than the Bill of Rights.

I’ve added the Illinois Senate Candidates’ responses to Vote-Smart’s survey on drug issues to the Senate Candidates page.
Still not enough information for me to give endorsements, but I’m working on it. If any of the campaigns wish to contact me with more information about their views, I’d love to hear from them.

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.