Drug WarRant

Well, duh!
Bush Administration Misuses Science Data, Report Says. “The Bush administration persistently manipulates scientific data to serve its ideology and protect the interests of its political supporters, a report by the minority staff of the House Committee on Government Reform says.” The New York Times article (also covered in other media) gives an overview of a new report called “Politics and Science in the Bush Administration.”
Of course, the drug policy reform world has been quite aware of this fact. From the lies and exaggerations coming from the ONDCP to the ignorance of major scientific evidence on the part of the new Administrator of the DEA, science has been ignored and altered to fit the drug policy agenda of the administration.
This new report doesn’t cover very much, and the one reference to drug policy is old news, but I thought it was worth including it here (full report available as a pdf – thanks to David Harris for the link):

The Administration undermined its ability to obtain scientific advice on substance abuse by using an apparent political litmus test for appointees to an important drug abuse research committee.
In 2002, Dr. William R. Miller, a professor of psychology and psychiatry at University of New Mexico, was invited to join the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse. This advisory committee guides policy and funding on drug abuse at NIH. Before Dr. Miller could be appointed, however, an official from Secretary Thompson’s office called him to ask several questions. These questions included whether he was sympathetic to faith-based initiatives, whether he supported abortion rights, whether he supported the death penalty for drug kingpins, and whether he had voted for President Bush.
Dr. Miller recalled that Secretary Thompson’s aide said, “I need to vet you to determine whether you might have any views that would be an embarrassment to the president.” After Dr. Miller answered that he does support needle exchange — a public health intervention proven to save lives but opposed by social conservatives — the aide responded, “That’s a problem.” When asked whether he voted for Bush, Dr. Miller said that he had not. The aide asked, “Why didn’t you support the President?”
The aide told Dr. Miller he would determine whether his views were acceptable. Dr. Miller was never called back, and his name was not on the final list of appointees. Informed of what happened, Dr. Donald Kennedy, past president of Stanford University and editor of Science, commented: “I don’t think any administration has penetrated so deeply into the advisory committee structure as this one, and I think it matters . . . . If you start picking people by their ideology instead of their scientific credentials, you are inevitably reducing the quality of the advisory group.”

And now for something completely different…
Check out the page on Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) and the controversy surrounding this substance which has been linked to cancer and apparently is used a great deal in the dairy industry. How long will it take for the DEA to add this to the Schedule of Controlled Substances?

Odds and Ends
— Media Awareness Project has a new letter writing alert regarding a US Attorney for Hawaii who used grossly inflated “ice” numbers in order to try to justify a weakening of constitutional protections. Go there and add your voice.
— John Ashcroft is trying to control sentencing by requiring prosecutors to snitch on judges who use their own discretion and provide lighter sentences than Ashcroft wants. (Boston Globe)
— The last issue of The Week Online with DRCNet is available online (beginning next week it will be called the Drug War Chronicle). Check out the article on the marinol prescription death sentence.
— The new issue of Drug Sense Weekly is also out, with an excellent sampling of drug war news from around the world. (and thanks for the plug!)
— If you have been denied financial aid for college due to a past drug arrest, check out the John W. Perry Fund scholarship. Also visit that page to see how you can help with donations or getting the outrageous Higher Education Act provision changed.

“DEA Bad Girl Michele Leonhart”

The new nominee for Deputy Administrator of the DEA is a gung-ho drug warrior with questionable ties to a discredited super-snitch.

The Bush administration wants to head up the Drug Enforcement Agency with two women for the first time in the history of the agency.
The Senate has already confirmed Karen Tandy as DEA administrator by unanimous consent in a late-night session last Thursday. As Jason Vest reported in A New Hard-Liner at the DEA, Tandy has a history of “prosecutorial overzealousness” and “ignorance of key drug policy studies.”

Now President Bush has announced his intention to nominate Michele M. Leonhart, Special Agent in Charge of DEA’s Los Angeles Division, for the position of Deputy Administrator.
Leonhart has already established herself as another hard-liner who will not be popular in the drug reform community.
In June of 2001, she blasted ecstasy use at raves with her statement that “some of the dances in the desert are no longer just dances, they’re like violent crack houses set to music.”
She has also been a visible part of the DEA’s attacks on California’s medical marijuana laws. On January 9, 1998, when U.S. Attorney Michael Yamaguchi announced in a press conference that the government would take action against California medical marijuana clubs (arguably the start of the DEA’s current war against the sick), Leonhart was standing at his side.
Read the rest of the story…

That’s a lot of cocaine… or is it?
Bolivian police, acting on tips from the DEA and Spanish police, seized 5 tons of cocaine destined for Spain, the largest seizure in Bolivia’s history. They found 2 tons on Friday, and another 3 tons in a mashed potato shipment on Saturday.

Now this is enough cocaine for over 4 million doses. Expect to hear quite a bit from the drug warriors on this topic in the next few weeks, and how they’re “winning” the war on drugs. After all, 5 tons has got to put a huge dent in the supply, right? You’d think so, unless you looked at the DEA’s own numbers and realized that they’ve seized around 1,000 tons of cocaine since 1986, without affecting the availability or street price in any significant way.

“Can Congress Get a Clue? (Karen Tandy and the DEA)”

Late Thursday night, the U.S. Senate unanimously confirmed Karen P. Tandy as the new head of the DEA, following former administrator Asa Hutchinson’s move to Homeland Security.
The Washington Post reported the confirmation, without mentioning some of the more disturbing facts of her past, or the lack of critical knowledge she exhibited in her confirmation hearing.
Jason Vest’s excellent article in The Nation – A New Hard-Liner at the DEA details some of the issues which should have received close scrutiny by the White House, the Senate, or at least by the Senate Judiciary Committee, including the fact that her assignments as a Justice Department prosecutor and administrator involved:

• busting mail order bong sellers
• busting medical marijuana operations in California and Oregon

Additionally, Karen Tandy:

• was “disqualified and prohibited from directly or indirectly participating” in an investigation by Judge Albert Bryan Jr. because she read documents the court had ruled were protected by attorney-client privilege
• in one case waited until only three days before trial before giving defense attorneys over 60,000 pages of critical documents, all unindexed
• supposedly threatened to withhold family visits unless a defendant said what she wanted him to say
• seized the property of a defendant’s family member even though there was no evidence he was involved
• changed the wording of a plea agreement without the knowledge of the defendant, defense attorney, or judge, in order to set up the defendant for a subsequent arrest
• failed to turn over exculpatory evidence in a cocaine trial
• seized the business and property of a man despite a lack of evidence – a judge was so upset by the lack of evidence that he dismissed the charges “with prejudice”

…
Read the full story

Today in Marijuana History

August 2, 1937: The Marijuana Tax Act is passed, enacting federal marijuana prohibition for the first time. Harry Anslinger commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, tells Congress during a remarkably brief hearing, “Marihuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.” William Woodward, representative of the AMA testifies against the legislation, saying “The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug.” On the floor of the house, the entire discussion was:

• Member from upstate New York: “Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?”
• Speaker Rayburn: “I don’t know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it’s a narcotic of some kind.”
• “Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?”
• Member on the committee jumps up and says: “Their Doctor Wentworth came down here. They support this bill 100 percent.”

Not true, but good enough to get Republican support and passage.

August 2, 1977: President Jimmy Carter tells Congress, “Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself. Therefore, I support legislation amending Federal law to eliminate all Federal criminal penalties for the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana.”

Thanks to The Week Online with DRCNet (soon to be called “The Drug War Chronicle”)

Worth a read
1. For a good overview of the current status of the war on drugs, the August 18 issue of The Nation will include an article by Sasha Abramsky: The Drug War Goes Up in Smoke (now available online, and also available at MAP).

“The war on terror may be too new to declare victory or defeat. But this nation has been fighting a war on drugs for more than a quarter-century,
ever since New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller mandated harsh drug
sentencing in 1973–and it may be time to announce that this is one war
we’ve lost.”

2. In my own state of Illinois, this week governor Rod Blagojevich finally brought us out of the dark ages by signing a bill allowing limited non-prescription sale of syringes, to slow the spread of AIDS and other blood-born diseases among drug addicts. Steve Chapman has a good article in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune: Eliminating death penalties for drug use (Chicago Tribune, free registration required, or you can read the article at MAP).

“Want to do something?”
Thought some of you might like to do something about the drug war, so I’ve added a resource page so you can get involved. (It also includes a couple of cool ways to link to this site if you’d like.)

Prosecutorial Misconduct – Money Laundering and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Prosecutor Robin Piper of Butler County, Ohio has decided on his own that existing drug law penalties aren’t good enough, so he’s started tacking on a new charge: money laundering. By adding the money laundering charge to a drug sale, he can add 5 years to the sentence. Apparently, a little-used section of the Ohio laws on money laundering includes the phrase “by receiving the money as the result of corrupt activity, knowing that the money coming to him is the result of corrupt activity.” Hmmm… does this mean if I lived in Ohio I could get five years for receiving my tax refund?
But wait! It gets worse.
District Attorney Jerry Wilson of Watauga County, North Carolina has come up with some unique charges in the case of the bust of a methamphetamines lab: two counts of manufacturing a nuclear or chemical weapon. That’s right, the drug defendant is being charged under a new Weapons of Mass Destruction law passed after 9/11, which carries a penalty of 12 years to life on each count, which includes “any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury and … is or contains toxic or poisonous chemicals or their immediate precursors.” Philip Morris, watch out!
In the meth lab case, agents found a house with meth, the chemicals used to manufacture it, and an automatic weapon. So, in addition to the two counts of manufacturing a nuclear or chemical weapon, the defendant was charged with: one count each of manufacturing a controlled substance, maintaining a dwelling place for a controlled substance, possession of the immediate precursor chemicals with intent to manufacture, sell and deliver a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance, maintaining a vehicle for a controlled substance (he had a car), and possession of a weapon of mass destruction (the gun).
Now, first of all, some blame has to lay with the legislators, who pass so many criminal laws and provisions that they can’t even keep track of them, rarely consider how they’ll be used, and care little about the proper crafting of them. However, when did the job of the prosecutor become one of getting a conviction at all costs, for as many charges and penalties that they can creatively cobble together? True, our system is an adversarial system, but the prosecutor’s job is not just one of adamantly countering the defense, but they also serve the constitution, the people, the law (in intent as well as structure), and, dare I say it, justice.
Is anyone teaching prosecutorial ethics?