Drug WarRant

This week’s Drug War Chronicle from DRCNet has an interview with retired New York Supreme Court Justice Jerome Marks, who has spent most of his time since retirement fighting against the war on drugs, and helping the victims of the war.
First, this from New York Newsday earlier this week:

In his 22 years on the bench, State Supreme Court Justice Jerome Marks put plenty of men and women behind bars. “Now,” he said, “I’m trying to get some of them out.”

It isn’t that Marks, 88 and now retired, is soft on crime. It’s just that he regards the Rockefeller drug laws enacted in September 1973, as the “most unjust enacted in my time.” Marks says the draconian drug laws have snared the weak and the poor in its net, but few drug lords – who can afford expensive lawyers to keep them out of jail.

And more from the DRCNet interview:

I was doing civil court, but when I transferred over to the Supreme Court I started getting these drug cases. I would have these cases in front of me where if people had sold over two ounces of drugs or possessed over four ounces, they were looking at 15-25 years-to-life. That’s the same sentence as murder, and it’s the only nonviolent crime with that type of sentence…. I have never seen a law as bad as this. The punishment just doesn’t fit the crime. And it doesn’t make sense… I was a great admirer of our criminal justice system as a young man, and I still am, but not as much. Back then we were concerned with rehabilitating people, but now we are more concerned with incarcerating them. We need more programs to help people…. We’ve been going in the wrong direction, and I just hope it changes.

On Monday, Marks will be honored by Mothers of the Disappeared whose members have seen their children locked up under the Rockefeller laws.

Thanks for the nice review today from The Weblog Review:

…If you are interested in how The Man is spending your money in “the war against drugs” then you will likely find this site to be a great resource. All in all the web site accomplishes what it is meant to in a clear format. The articles are well researched and there is usually many links within the blog entries to ‘read more about’ the topic. It is clear to me that some thought and work has gone into this web site.

It’s an pretty good review site and a great way to discover some interesting blogs.

OK, I was impressed with the Chicago Sun Times editorial I reported yesterday regarding the Supreme Court’s refusal to take on the government’s appeal regarding doctors and medical marijuana. What I didn’t realize was how widespread this was.
It seems we have reached a point in the government’s insane harrassment, that people have been waiting for a moment of rationality.
Tonight, I’m letting the editorial writers speak. Here’s just a sample of what’s in the editorial pages around the country:
The Palm Beach Post Editorial:

The Supreme Court has taken a belated but welcome step back from Reefer Madness.æ The decision should bring relief from unnecessary suffering to some Americans.æ It also should make the federal government butt out…. By making marijuana a Schedule 2 drug, like morphine, the government could look compassionate and sensible on the issue.æ At last.

Baltimore Sun Editorial:

The supreme court sent a strong signal yesterday that it agrees with those who think the federal anti-marijuana campaign has gone overboard… President Bush’s drug czar, John P.æ Walters, who has built enthusiastically on anti-marijuana policies launched during the Clinton administration, should take the hint from the court and practice restraint… The high court’s decision to let that ruling stand is only a milestone in a long-running saga, but an important one worth applauding.

St. Petersburg Times Editorial:

… the U.S. Supreme Court has taken away one of the tools Attorney General John Ashcroft has used to try and assert federal authority over an issue that should be left to the states… Ashcroft continues to try to subvert the voters’ will in California and elsewhere where medical marijuana was legalized through an initiative process. His interest in state’s rights, so evident when he was a public official in Missouri, seems to have dissipated since he ascended to the top federal law enforcement job.

Detroit Free Press Editorial:

The U.S.æ Supreme Court came down on the side of compassion in deciding that federal drug warriors should back off from prosecuting doctors who recommend marijuana use for medical purposes… If states are willing to allow it, the federal government should let them be and concentrate on more pressing drug issues: busting those who deal in large quantities of harder drugs.

San Francisco Gate Editorial:

CALIFORNIA DOCTORS should feel both vindicated and emboldened by the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to outlaw doctor-patient discussions on the possible benefits of medical marijuana.

Las Vegas Review Journal Editorial:

By refusing the case, the Supreme Court struck a blow for free speech and state’s rights…

The Oregonian Editorial:

The government has no business telling doctors what they can and can’t say to their patients about any medical issue, including whether they think marijuana might help them….As we wrote in this space Tuesday, we would prefer a public decision on the central issue in all this — whether marijuana use and cultivation ought to be legal. Until that day arrives, though, the war on marijuana must not be fought by muzzling doctors and threatening their careers.

Denver Post Editorial:

…decisions on what’s effective in treating illnesses should be based on science, not politics. We hope we’ve come a long way since the 17th century when Galileo had to recant what he knew to be true – that the Earth revolved around the sun…. We welcome the high court’s action on Tuesday as a step toward rational thought rather than pure emotion.

Clarence Page’s Column (Chicago Tribune and syndicated nationwide):

It was a small step for the U.S. Supreme Court, but one giant leap toward a sane drug policy….Now they should take the next step: Get the federal government off the backs of state medicinal marijuana laws. Then we might avoid atrocities like the Ed Rosenthalcase….Polls tend to show a large majority of Americans support allowing marijuana for medicinal use. But progress is held up by a vocal minority of anti-pot zealots who would rather treat marijuana as a matter of crime and punishment, instead of public health.

This is a good time to remind your representative that the ones out of touch are the politicians. Send them one of these articles. Tell them what you feel. If they finally believe that they can allow the states to make their own medical marijuana decisions without political fallout (or better yet, realize that inaction on their part will bring negative consequences), the laws may finally change.

I’m just trying to watch a little TV. A ball game, a movie… And recently it seems that every night I end up seeing the same commercial at least once. It’s propaganda. Worse, it’s a lie. And I helped pay for it.
Tax dollars fund the Drug Czar’s Media Campaign, which includes a number of offensive ads, including this one:

A boy walks across the street. He stoops down to add a snapshot to a collection of flowers, photos, and candles by the roadside.

Superimposed Text: His kid brother was killed… by a driver under the influence… of marijuana… He was the driver.

Voice Over: In a roadside study, one in three reckless drivers who were tested for drugs, tested positive for marijuana. It’s more harmful than we all thought.

If you haven’t seen this commercial (which would probably only be because you’ve been serving in Iraq, or have been living without a TV), you can watch it at Media Campaign (select “Super Bowl Memorial”).
I know I’ve talked about this particular issue several times, but not nearly as much as the Drug Czar has lied about it.
If you do a little research through the Drug Czar’s sites, you will discover that their entire support for this claim is based on the following study:

Brookoff, D.; Cook, C.S.; Williams, C.; and Mann, CS. Testing reckless drivers for cocaine and marijuana. New England Journal of Medicine 331:518-522, 1994.

This “study” basically followed a number of traffic stops in an area one summer. All those who appeared to be drunk were eliminated from the study (and no record was kept of how many were first screened out). Then the rest were tested for marijuana and cocaine (nothing else) with no testing for other drugs, fatigue, etc. There are so many problems here… But why listen to me?
According to the editors of the National Drug Strategy Network:

[This study has many fundamental methodological flaws. First, the basic data collection technique is flawed by eliminating an unknown number of suspected alcohol intoxicated subjects. Second, 28% of the 175 in the non-alcohol group were tested for alcohol and were positive for recent alcohol use at levels up to 0.21 mg/d l, a level far above legal intoxication. The authors point out that other studies have shown that up to one-third of subjects with blood alcohol levels in the intoxicated range have no appreciable odor of alcohol. Thus some of the intoxicated “drug” cases were certainly intoxicated by alcohol and probably not by use of cocaine or marijuana. The authors fail to correlate any of the alcohol intoxication data they had with either the drug use data or the degree of intoxication. Third, the authors fail to quantify or define “under the influence” and imply that it means testing positive for the drug metabolite in urine at any level of concentration. This indicates nothing about the level of impairment the person is experiencing. Nor does it tell us what drug is responsible for the impairment. In fact, the study states that some of those that were at first classified as not under the influence of alcohol but intoxicated later were found to have blood alcohol levels establishing legal intoxication and that some who tested positive for marijuana did not appear intoxicated. Fourth, the drivers could also have been under the influence of any number of prescription or over-the-counter drugs, for which the researchers did not test. While they tested positive for marijuana or cocaine or both, many other drugs (legal or illegal) could have been responsible for their impairment. This study falls prey to the fallacy that correlation equals causation. Not knowing the total number stopped for reckless driving makes it impossible to support the authors’ conclusion that the use of marijuana and cocaine is a major cause of reckless driving. — Editors]

On the other hand, as I have detailed in an earlier post, a number of serious scientific studies have detailed the minimal dangers from marijuana and driving.
Again, a reminder… I do not recommend driving while on marijuana (or on a cell phone). However, it pisses me off to continually hear the Drug Czar’s lies at my expense.

In today’s editorial “U.S.æ on the Wrong Side of Medical Marijuana Battle”

There are so many reasons to decry the federal government’s policy on medical marijuana that one hardly knows where to begin.æ First is medical science, which shows that marijuana provides unique comfort for those suffering from glaucoma, the effects of chemotherapy, and other ailments.æ On this alone, stubborn federal resistance to permitting limited use of marijuana would seem irrational, even cruel.

But that is only the beginning.æ Nine states, from conservative Arizona to liberal Alaska, have passed laws permitting the use of marijuana with a doctor’s prescription, and another 35 states approved of legislation acknowledging marijuana’s medical value.æ Thus to have the federal government so vigorously fighting to undermine the states in an area — the oversight of medical practice — that is otherwise left to local discretion, seems an inexplicable encroachment of Washington into the rights of states.

And now, as if more support were necessary, the U.S.æ Supreme Court has turned down a Bush administration request that the federal government be able to harass doctors merely for describing the benefits of medical marijuana to their patients.æ This was perhaps the most invidious government intrusion of all, since it went beyond the expected control of illicit substances into the control of ideas, of speech.æ Unable to counteract the evidence that proves the value of medical marijuana, the administration cravenly sought to control the communication of that evidence…

Go ahead. Read it.

SAY GOODBYE TO “JUST SAY NO” – The Drug Laws Have Been Ineffective And Counterproductive.æ So Change Them. by Simon Potter, President of the Canadian Bar Association, in the upcoming issue of Time Magazine (Canada).

Our current laws have not stopped people from using marijuana.æ What these laws have done is greatly expand the profits of criminal and even terrorist organizations, promote a violent black-market trade and waste the time and limited resources of police, prosecutors and the justice system.æ They have made the drug use that does occur more dangerous.æ Governments have relied on simplistic “just say no” messages to deal with the complex nature of drug use in our society.æ They have distracted us from the central issue–why some individuals use drugs in a way that causes harm to them and to the communities around them.æ In short, the existing approach has been unnecessary, expensive, ineffectual and counterproductive.æ
Criminal law is a blunt instrument, inappropriate for dealing with many of the subtleties of a complex society.æ The Canadian government’s own statement of criminal-justice policy recognizes this.æ The Criminal Law in Canadian Society, released in 1982 when Jean Chretien was Minister of Justice, stressed that the criminal law was an instrument of last resort, to be used only when other means of social control were inadequate or inappropriate.æ Yet successive federal governments have chosen to ignore this policy when it came to drugs…

We need more of this kind of truth and reason reported in the media.

Jeff Trigg at RandomActOfKindness has an excellent piece on the potential for industrial hemp farming in Illinois. Check it out.
This is something near and dear to me, and very important to the student group I work with – M.A.S.H. (Mobilizing Activists and Students for Hemp). We prepared a report for the governor’s economic development team which touched on this important issue as well.

The greatest service which can be rendered any country is to add a useful plant to its culture.

–Thomas Jefferson

The Rush Limbaugh Oxycontin story has been one of the hottest around in ages. The good news is that it has generated discussion, and perhaps encouraged some of his audience to think about drugs in a way that doesn’t demonize the user or the abuser.
I see two distinct directions this story can travel.

1. More discussion. Rush returns and uses his pulpit to push for treatment rather than incarceration for all drug abusers, and calls for an open discussion about drug use. This could be positive. or…
2. The Rush story is seized by the DEA and the ONDCP as a propaganda tool to further restrict the legal and proper medical use of opioids for severe pain treatment. In a plea-bargain generated statement, Rush blames lax enforcement and improperly supervised medical community for his addiction and the ease of getting pills, and calls for greater restrictions. This one scares me.

A couple of weeks ago, I posted about the serious problems regarding severe pain care under the drug war regime. To that information I would like to add this excellent letter to the DEA from Jane M. Orient, Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. It was written back in April, but I just found it today, and think it’s worth reading.

The big news around today is the fact that the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that affected whether doctors could talk to their patients about marijuana.
The quick synopsis: The government wanted to gag doctors and punish them if they even mentioned marijuana to patients. The 9th Circuit correctly ruled that the government has no right to prevent doctors from discussing medical options. The government appealed and now the Supreme Court has agreed with the Circuit Court by refusing to hear the case. So doctors will be able to talk to patients about medical pot. See more coverage at TalkLeft.
One problem with the news coverage today. The AP story that has been used by all the major media outlets starts out:

The Supreme Court cleared the way Tuesday for state laws allowing ill patients to smoke marijuana if a doctor recommends it.

That is a bit deceptive. It’s true that if the Supremes had agreed to hear the case, and had sided with the government, it would be a severe blow to the future of medical marijuana. However, this victory does not clear the way for medical marijuana use. Federal laws still hold, allowing the DEA to hassle medical marijuana patients and providers, and even go after doctors if they move beyond talking and actually help patients get marijuana.
In a related story (and a follow-up to my speculation about Arnold yesterday):

Tomorrow morning at 10:00 am [Wednesday, October 15],
medical marijuana patients and their supporters will be at California
Governor-Elect Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Santa Monica office. After a press
conference out front, they will ask him to use his meeting with President
Bush later this week to help put an end to the federal attacks on patients
and doctors.

Count on Americans for Safe Access to make sure the Governator doesn’t forget his medical marijuana campaign promise! If you’re in the area, why not stop by the Santa Monica office tomorrow.

Some disturbing news: In Mexico, a drug war like none before

NUEVO LAREDO, Mexico — Members of an elite Mexican army unit have deserted and formed a drug gang, using their military training to launch a violent battle for control of this border city, Mexico’s top anti-drug prosecutor said in an interview with the Associated Press.

The war for Nuevo Laredo is unlike other recent drug conflicts — it’s a turf war involving most of Mexico’s major cartels in broad alliances not seen in a decade. It has the Mexican army fighting an organized unit of former comrades, and it has cost American lives.

This despite the statement on the Drug Czar’s website:

Since President Fox assumed office, Mexican law enforcement officials have displayed an unprecedented willingness to cooperate with U.S. officials, and the Government of Mexico has significantly improved bilateral counterdrug cooperation.

and also:

In a June 26 statement marking the 15th annual International Day
Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking, U.S. Drug Czar John
Walters said Colombia and Mexico, among others, “are demonstrating
that cooperation, dedication, and hard work in attacking the illicit
drug trade lead to success.”

On the other hand, Canada has just endured a summer where in many parts marijuana possession was effectively legal. Additionally, Vancouver opened a safe injection site. The sky didn’t fall, armed militias didn’t take power, and the population didn’t start killing each other. However Drug Czar Walters called Canada a “blemish”, accused the country of promoting “state sponsored suicide” and declared that Canadians are “ashamed” of their Prime Minister. Additionally, the peaceful Dutch have been admonished by the Drug Czar for not taking away more of their citizens civil liberties.

There’s a lesson here.
If I was the leader of a country, the last thing I’d want to do is cooperate with the Drug Czar’s foreign policy. Just doesn’t seem like a smart move. In fact, I’d try to do whatever would most irritate him, in order to insure a healthier, more peaceful society.
And all of that great drug policy foreign aid in the form of toxic chemicals and helicopters and weapons to fight the war on drugs? “No thanks,” I’d say. “We’ll be just fine without your help.”
____
P.S. — Walters is presumptuous to claim that Canadians are ashamed of their Prime Minister. That’s up to them. Just like it’s up to us to say that we’re ashamed of our drug czar.