Drug WarRant

“Drugs.” It’s a word like “food.” Encompasses a whole range of things, with a wide variety of impacts on humans.

Oreos and broccoli are both “food.” Yet I would guess that any educated person would say that there’s a difference in what happens if you eat a lot of one, compared to a lot of the other.

And yet, we’ve constantly dealt with public policy that treats “drugs” interchangeably (at least when convenient to do so).

NIDA’s Nora Volkow, whose entire job’s purpose is to find negative aspects to “drugs,” epitomizes this (intentionally) sloppy approach to science and policy.

“Look at the evidence,” Volkow said in an interview on the National Institutes of Health campus, pointing to the harms already inflicted by tobacco and alcohol. “It’s not subtle — it’s huge. Legal drugs are the main problem that we have in our country as it relates to morbidity and mortality. By far. Many more people die of tobacco than all of the drugs together. Many more people die of alcohol than all of the illicit drugs together.

“And it’s not because they are more dangerous or addictive. Not at all — they are less dangerous. It’s because they are legal. . . . The legalization process generates a much greater exposure of people and hence of negative consequences that will emerge. And that’s why I always say, ‘Can we as a country afford to have a third legal drug? Can we?’ We know the costs already on health care, we know the costs on accidents, on lost productivity. I let the numbers speak for themselves.”

We hear this over and over. “We can’t afford a third legal drug. Look at all the costs from alcohol and tobacco.”

Last I heard, marijuana is different than either alcohol or tobacco. Sure you can smoke both marijuana and tobacco (although you don’t have to), but the affects on the lungs are dramatically different and so is the nature of dependency. Sure, both marijuana and alcohol can make you high, but their mechanisms are remarkably different, as are the way they affect behavior.

Why are these the three? Why aren’t we considering the advisability of having the drug caffeine legal, given the societal costs of the other two legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco? Or how about sugar? Certainly sugar is much more dangerous to health and national health costs than marijuana.

The “we can’t afford a third legal drug” is extremely dishonest (and so naturally it’s used by the Kevin Sabet group all the time). Alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, caffeine, sugar, khat, heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, etc., are all different. It does no good to crafting public policy to assume that any one of them will have the same effect on society as one of the others.

This is part of a new campaign by the ACLU: War Comes Home: The Excessive Militarization of American Policing

All across the country, heavily armed SWAT teams are raiding people’s homes in the middle of the night, often just to search for drugs. It should enrage us that people have needlessly died during these raids, that pets have been shot, and that homes have been ravaged.

Our neighborhoods are not warzones, and police officers should not be treating us like wartime enemies. Any yet, every year, billions of dollars’ worth of military equipment flows from the federal government to state and local police departments. Departments use these wartime weapons in everyday policing, especially to fight the wasteful and failed drug war, which has unfairly targeted people of color.

As our new report makes clear, it’s time for American police to remember that they are supposed to protect and serve our communities, not wage war on the people who live in them.

Even the Los Angeles Times (which has historically been a bit of a drug war cheerleader) thinks it’s out of control —

Editorial: Have police departments gone too far with SWAT units?

The ACLU rightly urges the federal government to scale back its program of military hand-me-downs to civilian agencies, and suggests that the Department of Justice require data collection on SWAT deployments. Local and state governments also need to standardize criteria and oversight for when the units are used, and insist that they be deployed only when necessary, and proportionate to the situation. Together, those steps would help restore the notion that police exist to protect and serve, not conquer.

Of course, awareness on this issue owes a huge debt of gratitude to Radley Balko, who has been at the very front line of talking about the militarization of the drug war.

He has another article today:

Massachusetts SWAT teams claim they’re private corporations, immune from open records laws

Some of these LECs [Law Enforcement Councils] have also apparently incorporated as 501(c)(3) organizations. And it’s here that we run into problems. According to the ACLU, the LECs are claiming that the 501(c)(3) status means that they’re private corporations, not government agencies. And therefore, they say they’re immune from open records requests. Let’s be clear. These agencies oversee police activities. They employ cops who carry guns, wear badges, collect paychecks provided by taxpayers and have the power to detain, arrest, injure and kill. They operate SWAT teams, which conduct raids on private residences. And yet they say that because they’ve incorporated, they’re immune to Massachusetts open records laws. The state’s residents aren’t permitted to know how often the SWAT teams are used, what they’re used for, what sort of training they get or who they’re primarily used against.

A police state happens when the people fail to stop it from developing (or even actively encourage it through succumbing to fear). It is up to us to insure that the public knows the warning signs (and that we’ve already reached the point of urgency).

Global Day of Protest Against the War on Drugs

Every year, the United Nations designates June 26 as the International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking. Sounds good, right? […] In recent years, some countries have “celebrated” their approach to drug abuse and trafficking by executing and torturing those convicted of drug crimes. Still sound good? Not so much.

And so, in response, people around the world are challenging not only the harshest of punishments for people convicted of drug crimes but also the criminalization of drug use in the first place — namely the war on drugs, which began in earnest in this country over 40 years ago and has since been spread worldwide with the help of the UN. For the second year in a row, an international groundswell of activists have organized a Global Day of Action under the moniker Support, Don’t Punish, with support from groups like the Global Commission on Drug Policy, the International Drug Policy Consortium, and the Drug Policy Alliance. In addition to the thousands of actions around the world focusing on various aspects of the failed drug war, drug policy reform advocates will be taking their protest right to the source: the United Nations Headquarters in New York.

I like the idea of taking this day back.

We’ve discussed this case already, but it makes it even more powerful when told by the mother.

A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son

Flashbang grenades were created for soldiers to use during battle. When they explode, the noise is so loud and the flash is so bright that anyone close by is temporarily blinded and deafened. It’s been three weeks since the flashbang exploded next to my sleeping baby, and he’s still covered in burns.

There’s still a hole in his chest that exposes his ribs. At least that’s what I’ve been told; I’m afraid to look.

These stories are important to tell. Too much of the public has been lulled into believing that SWAT is just a necessary part of policing and that it’s all about protecting officers from the “bad guys.” The more that they realize that this kind of event is inevitable with drug war militarization, the sooner we’ll be able to restore some sanity.

Jacob Sullum has an interesting article: Colorado’s Cannabis Consumption Conundrum

But once a visitor settles on a gram of Budderface or a quarter-ounce of Cinderella 99, he has a problem: Where can he smoke it? State and local restrictions have made answering that question a much bigger challenge than it needs to be.

This is something that needs to be figured out – one of the things about legalization has to be enabling a social aspect to cannabis use. You should be able to go listen to a band, or get together with people in a “coffee shop” kind of place.

And the lack of smoking places is going to drive tourists dabbling in cannabis to choose edibles, which is not the way to first experience it, in my mind.

Related: The First Colorado Hotel to Post ‘420 Friendly’ Right on Sign?. Looks like smart marketing to me.

Now, will they do anything about it?

Major Federal Official Admits to Congress That Prohibition Has Harmed Research into Marijuana’s Benefits by Paul Armentano

Those who work in marijuana policy reform have long been aware that federal regulations and agencies significantly impede investigators’ ability to conduct clinical studies of cannabis, in particular those protocols designed to evaluate the plant’s therapeutic potential. During recent testimony on Capitol Hill, Nora Volkow – the director of the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) – admitted this fact publicly to members of Congress.

Rep. Connolly: “Right now, NIDA has a monopoly on the production of marijuana to be used for FDA-approved research and medical purposes and that’s been the case since 1974. Is that correct?”

Nora Volkow: “That is my understanding.”

Rep. Connolly: “Is there any other schedule I drug used for research purposes that’s available only from one government source?”

Nora Volkow: “I don’t think there is.”

Rep. Connolly: “So, again, (this is) unique to marijuana. You [NIDA] have exclusive control for research purposes unlike any substance.”

Nora Volkow: “Correct, in the United States.”

Rep. Connolly: “What is the rationale for that?”

Nora Volkow: [long pause] “I guess the rationale … is that you want to be able to have control over the material that you’re providing for research.”

Rep. Connolly: “Why wouldn’t that be true about cocaine?”

Nora Volkow: “Cocaine is a drug that is regulated differently. … The production of marijuana is based on plants.”

Rep. Connolly: “DEA has licensed privately funded manufacturers to produce methamphetamines, LSD, MDMA, heroin, cocaine, and a host of other controlled substances for research purposes. Is that not correct?”

Nora Volkow: “For research purposes, yes.”

It’s a shame that it’s taken 40 years for this kind of questioning to take place in Congress.

A lot going on today…

Hearing in Congress: Mixed Signals: the Administration’s Policy on Marijuana, Part Four – the Health Effects and Science

Twitter is blowing up right now. Some great interactions between @KevinSabet, @TomAngell, @BeauKilmer, @RafaelONDCP and others.

Hemp seeds seized at border. They don’t know what to do with them.

Cory Booker and Rand Paul are trying to get the Senate to pass a bill leaving medical marijuana states alone.

Pope says just say no to legalizing drugs

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Francis condemned the legalization of recreational drugs as a flawed and failed experiment on Friday, lending his voice to a debate which is raging from the U.S. to Uruguay and beyond.

Francis told delegates to a drug-enforcement conference in Rome that even limited attempts to legalize recreational drugs “are not only highly questionable from a legislative standpoint, but they fail to produce the desired effects.”

Likewise, providing addicts with drugs doesn’t solve the problem and is “rather a veiled means of surrendering to the phenomenon,” he said.

“Let me state this in the clearest terms possible: the problem of drug use is not solved with drugs!”

I like a lot of what the new Pope has been saying, but here he’s just completely out to lunch.

Legalization a “failed experiment”? Where? Name one place where drug legalization has failed. The truly flawed and failed experiment is prohibition.

And that last sentence? Wow. The absolute moral certainty with which he speaks nonsense is breathtaking. I can practically picture him leading citizens with pitchforks against medical scientists vaccinating for smallpox, saying “Let me state this in the clearest terms possible: the problem of disease is not solved with disease!”

Speaking on behalf of morality doesn’t excuse you for ignorance.

Alaska police chiefs say legalizing marijuana will increase funding, training needs

Police administrators across Alaska worry that marijuana legalization could mean increased costs for their departments, according to survey results released Tuesday by the Alaska Association of Chiefs of Police.

AACOP estimates the cost of legalizing marijuana could mean $6 million in unanticipated costs for law enforcement in Alaska if the initiative passes this year. The association says much of those costs account for what they believe will be an increase in drug use, specifically among teens and impaired drivers.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around it, but apparently the idea is that although marijuana is currently widely used and is illegal, and they obviously expend significant resources enforcing it now, with legalization, they’ll have to work harder in order to find ways to continue to arrest people for it.

Laren Zager, Fairbanks chief of police, said legalization would mean most of his 32 patrol and traffic officers will likely have to be trained in the drug recognition expert program as well. Zager estimates that only four officers have the training currently. He said while the number of officers receiving that training has increased in recent years, marijuana legalization would “jet engine” that process.

Zager said his police department will happily carry out whatever becomes law but said this particular initiative is worth a second look.

“(Legalization) carries with it certain social hazards,” Zager said. “Most officers find it alarming.”

Sure they do.

Hillary Clinton Evolves on Another Issue – National Journal

On Tuesday, she was more amenable to change. On medical marijuana, Clinton called for more research into its benefits, without doubting they exist, but she stopped short of endorsing the widespread adoption of medical laws. “I think we need to be very clear about the benefits of marijuana use for medicinal purposes. I don’t think we’ve done enough research yet,” she said.

On recreational use, she was perhaps even more open to reform. “States are the laboratory of democracy,” she said, noting that Colorado and Washington had legalized the drug via referenda in 2012. “I want to wait and see what the evidence is” from the two states, she said.

This is someone being dragged kicking and screaming into the reality that the public supports reform more than the government, and some amount of shifting will be necessary to win votes.

Best response I saw on Facebook to this: “More research on mmj? That’s the opposite of leadership. Wish she had called for more research before voting to invade Iraq.”

Tom Angell gets it:

“Her openness to letting states proceed with implementing outright marijuana legalization shows just how far the politics of this issue have shifted since the 90’s, when her husband’s administration tried to punish doctors just for discussing the medical use of marijuana with their patients,” Angell said.

That’s exactly right. We have moved the discussion so far that we’re forcing politicians to follow.

Kevin Sabet, on the other hand, misses the point completely simply vomits words.

Kevin Sabet, however, the co-founder of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, which opposes legalization, downplayed Clinton’s evolution. “I don’t think we should read too much into these comments. If anything, she stopped short of embracing legalization, and I have a feeling that once she learns more about Colorado’s negative experiences, and the profit-seeking motives of today’s Big Marijuana industry, she’ll disappoint a lot of legalization advocates,” he said in an email.

I have not heard a single legalization advocate believe that Clinton would be a leader in reform, so that’s just nonsense.