Drug WarRant

These articles are from last week, but I didn’t get a chance to comment on them then.

In recent years there has been an explosion in reporting on “drugged driving.” (I have my own news filter on that term.) Most of this reporting has been over-the-top exploitative fear-mongering; most of it has been really aimed at marijuana (instead of all drugged driving as it purports); and all of it has been driven by an obsession of the ONDCP to find a back-door way to demonize and extra-criminalize marijuana.

I have consistently pushed back against this effort because I think it is dangerous in a number of ways (even managed to force the drug czar to shut up about it once), and sometimes I have been counseled by other drug policy reformers to be careful about it because the public isn’t going to respond well to the notion that driving while stoned is safe.

But of course, driving isn’t safe. But it’s relatively safe. Your odds of getting in an accident are fairly low, particularly if you’re smart about it. So when you see reporting of an unconfirmed study that says marijuana intoxication doubles your changes of an accident, that’s still pretty low — especially when being intoxicated on alcohol increases your changes of an accident by 15 or 20 times.

Again, this doesn’t mean you should drive when impaired on anything, but it means that getting all panicky about marijuana-impaired drivers causing Armageddon on the highways, and focusing law enforcement efforts on criminalizing anyone with any amount of metabolites in their blood, is really bad public policy.

So it’s nice to see some slightly more fact-based reporting starting to surface, particularly in the New York Times: Driving Under the Influence, of Marijuana by Maggie Koerth-Baker:

“And there’s always somebody who says, ‘I drive better while high.’ ”

Evidence suggests that is not the case. But it also suggests that we may not have as much to fear from stoned driving as from drunken driving. Some researchers say that limited resources are better applied to continuing to reduce drunken driving. Stoned driving, they say, is simply less dangerous. […]

The study’s lead author, Eduardo Romano, a senior research scientist at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, said that once he adjusted for demographics and the presence of alcohol, marijuana did not statistically increase the risk of a crash.

“Despite our results, I still think that marijuana contributes to crash risk,” he said, “only that its contribution is not as important as it was expected.”

The difference in risk between marijuana and alcohol can probably be explained by two things, Dr. Huestis and Dr. Romano both say. First, stoned drivers drive differently from drunken ones, and they have different deficits. Drunken drivers tend to drive faster than normal and to overestimate their skills, studies have shown; the opposite is true for stoned drivers.

Thanks to the New York Times. Also doing good reporting on this on a regular basis is Jacob Sullum.

Here, on the other hand, is NBC with fact-free fear mongering: Pot Fuels Surge in Drugged Driving Deaths

“Nobody will take this seriously until somebody loses another loved one.”

After dealing with the truly ugly behavior of Patrick Kennedy and Kevin Sabet on a daily basis, it’s almost refreshing to return to one of the old-style crazies.

That’s right, our old friend Cliff Kindaid of AIM, after seemingly avoiding talking about the drug war for too long, has surfaced: Obama Encourages Drug Money Laundering. Yep, it’s an article on the administration’s guidance to banks that might allow legal marijuana stores in Colorado and Washington to actually use banks.

For extra bonus, Cliff brings in Calvina Fay!

Calvina L. Fay, executive director of the Drug Free America Foundation, told AIM, “This is yet one more example of the lawlessness of the Obama administration. We all know that banks are federally regulated and that pot is still illegal at the federal level. This action will clearly put banks in jeopardy of violating regulations and will enable criminal activity to thrive.”

She added, “This action tells parents and grandparents that the government can no longer be counted on to do what it is intended to do: protect U.S. citizens from criminals who engage in drug trafficking, human trafficking, weapons trafficking, and other serious illegal activities that are inter-connected to the drug underworld. Rather, our government is now embracing this activity and enabling it.”

Got a lot of stuff going on at work right now, so posting has been light for a couple of days.

Be sure to check the comments as there are always some good discussions going on around the couch.

We’ve talked a lot about Kevin Sabet, Patrick Kennedy and their “SAM” organization and how they have positioned themselves as the anti-marijuana-legalization force. Knowing that few would really support them if their policy suggestions were transparent, they’ve cloaked their pitch in an impossible vagueness (no more incarceration, yet opposing legalization, and worrying about something called ‘Big Marijuana.’) Treatment was involved, but it was unclear how mandatory.

Tony Dokoupil gives us some additional insight with his article: Treatment or Jail: Patrick Kennedy Wages Fierce Anti-Pot Crusade

Treatment or jail is correct.

As Kennedy and Sabet cut a path between the poles of legalization and prohibition, they seem to list toward the status quo. They would make the simple possession of marijuana a civil infraction, like jaywalking, which could take 750,000 annual marijuana arrests down to zero, and alleviate the disproportionate burden that prohibition puts on people who are nonwhite and poor.

But instead of handcuffs, Kennedy and Sabet propose a mandatory screening for marijuana addiction, according to the “Legal Reform” section of their website. That could lead to “marijuana education,” and ultimately a year in a “probation program to prevent further drug use.” And if the pot smoker still insists on getting high? It’s handcuffs time.

Notice how quickly that went from no arrests to mandatory treatment to… arrests? Status quo is correct.

On medical marijuana:

He’d like to repeal every law that treats smoked marijuana as medicine.

On black markets:

…they’re particularly unapologetic about championing the continued existence of a black market. They say it’s mostly nonviolent on the American side, and will create fewer public health problems than allowing advertisers to flog for Big Marijuana.

Wow.

On the science behind their approach:

“Life isn’t really in our control,” says Kennedy, as another sober day fades to night. “There’s a mover in the universe, a higher power, so to speak, and we can’t imagine what we’re going to find in our universe if we let go and just let God lead us.”

…

SAM is in the process of creating some new websites, including:

1. Legalization Violations.org – A Website Tracking the Violations of the Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado and Washington.

So far, that website just has links to some of the more outrageously exploitative and fact-free headlines in the press – no actual violations.

That’s about the only conclusion one could make from his bizarre statements about marijuana and alcohol.

“If I’m at a wedding reception here and somebody has a drink or two, most people wouldn’t say they’re wasted,” Walker said, according to The Cap Times. “Most folks with marijuana wouldn’t be sitting around a wedding reception smoking marijuana.”

“Now there are people who abuse [alcohol], no doubt about it, but I think it’s a big jump between someone having a beer and smoking marijuana,” Walker added.

It’s a fairly common fallacious argument to defend alcohol being legal while other drugs are not. The argument essentially is that with alcohol you can enjoy it socially without getting “wasted,” whereas with other drugs, there’s no such thing as moderate social use — in fact there’s absolutely no reason to use it except to get “wasted.”

The problem with this argument, other than the fact that it’s completely false, is that a lot of people have used marijuana or have friends who use marijuana, and so find the argument laughable.

The California Narcotics Officers Association sent this bizarre letter to President Obama, asking him to retract his statements comparing marijuana and alcohol.

They start out by establishing their bona fides – for most people that would be showing that they are experts in a particular field through their study or knowledge in some way… but not the CNOA…

It’s dangerous work, as evidenced by the fact that 90 of the names on the California Peace Officers’ Memorial Wall were members of CNOA. Included among those 90 men and women are two of our past CNOA Presidents.

That’s right, we should believe them on marijuana policy discussions because some of their members have died at some point.

But lets get to the heart of their concern:

The California Narcotic Officers’ Association takes strong issue with your comparison of marijuana and alcohol. […] we would suggest that you reevaluate your comparison of alcohol and marijuana, keeping in mind the words of the late South African President Nelson Mandela:

“We should never underestimate the dangers of the drug problem and the high price that it exacts from many countries, including our own. It is a serious threat not only to the moral and intellectual integrity of our nation and other nations. It is a serious threat to the health and well-being of our people.”

What? Talk about a non-sequitur. What do those words of Mandela have to do with the relative dangers of marijuana and alcohol?

They go on to list the standard reefer madness litany of claimed harms, without any mention of the harms of alcohol.

But then we learn that they don’t actually care what the truth is.

Your comments in THE NEW YORKER minimize the dangers of drug use, and by doing so, lessen the impression that drugs are harmful. […] I would never condone or make reference to any substance that could diminish my children’s future success as being “less harmful.”

It doesn’t matter what the facts are. You’re not allowed to say that one thing is less harmful than another, even if it is.

We’re seeing this kind of rhetoric used a lot more as the prohibitionists realize that truthful comparisons don’t work for them. (You also often see a refusal to compare the relative dangers of driving impaired by alcohol and marijuana.)

It makes me wonder if all such comparisons should be considered inappropriate….

– It’s wrong to say that slapping someone is less harmful than shooting them in the head
– It’s wrong to say that taxing people is less harmful than genocide
– It’s wrong to say that eating sugar is less harmful than eating drain cleaner

Life is about comparisons. We make them constantly in the process of everyday choices. Knowledge helps us make better choices (although we still sometimes make bad ones). Labeling a group of choices as “bad” and therefore not comparable is not good policy, does not make our children safer, and is anathema to a free society.

The California Narcotics Officers should be ashamed of their leadership.

I hadn’t updated the Drug War Victims page recently (not for lack of victims). But the story of Eugene Mallory hit me hard enough that I felt he needed to be added.

Our own Allan Erickson has an excellent post over at Cannabis Now Magazine: Blue Collar Cannabis Economics. In it, he also brings up the issue of drug war victims.

To know that there will not be another Peter McWilliams, or Patrick Dorismond or Kathryn Johnston or Donald Scott dying because of lies existing as laws. The value of that is inestimable. […]

One thing I do suggest is that when legalization really hits the states, en masse, victims funds be set up and money set aside to pursue prosecutions for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The UNODC has spent a lot of effort complaining about marijuana legalization in places like Uruguay, Colorado, and Washington, but focus should really be on the damage being caused by the UNODC.

UN urged to act on Vietnam over death penalty

HANOI, Vietnam — The United Nations should immediately freeze anti-drug assistance to Vietnam after the communist country sentenced 30 people to die for drug-related offenses, three human rights groups working to get countries to abolish the death penalty said Wednesday. […]

Last month, a court in northern Vietnam sentenced 30 people to death last month for heroin trafficking, the largest number of defendants sentenced to death in a single trial in the country’s court history. The trial of each defendant lasted around a day. There are nearly 700 people on the death row in Vietnam, many of them for drugs. […]

UNODC aid to Vietnam will exceed $5 million for technical assistance, equipment, training and other support for the 2012-2017 period, the letter said. Drug control is the largest component of the program.

And, of course, when you have 30 people sentenced to death in one heroin trafficking sweep, you can bet that a majority of those are low-level participants.

UNODC funding to such countries (along with their praise of anti-trafficking efforts) gives cover to horrendous human rights violations in the name of the drug war.

And this is not the only way in which the UNODC’s hands are bloody. The organization has fully admitted the simple truth that world-wide drug prohibition causes black market violence. And yet they refuse to consider alternatives and push for more of the same.

Our article on how the Drug Czar is required by law to lie has gotten a lot of play over the past few years, and it points out how incredibly inappropriate it is for Congress to have such a provision, that is not only anti-science, but also codifies the government has being antagonistic to its citizens.

It was pretty cool to see that issue come up in the ONDCP hearings last week, and now Representative Steve Cohen has proposed the entertainingly-named Unmuzzle the Drug Czar Act, which would remove that provision.

Now, that’s not going to magically make this ONDCP a better place — one that’s suddenly dedicated to the truth. It’ll still be a cesspool of mendacity. But it would be a good move by Congress to eliminate that offensive language, and maybe open the door to the possibility of a future ONDCP that could actually be about drug control policy (as in regulation) rather than prohibition propaganda promotion.

There was a time when you could pass ridiculously harsh laws and nobody would do anything about it as long as it was for “drugs.”

That seems to be changing.

Italy court strikes down drug law blamed for prison crowding

ROME (Reuters) – Italy’s constitutional court on Wednesday struck down a drug law that tripled sentences for selling, cultivating or possessing cannabis and which has been blamed for causing prison overcrowding.

The constitutional court said the law, which was passed in 2006 by Silvio Berlusconi’s conservative government, was “illegitimate”, without giving further details. Some estimates suggest 10,000 people may be released from jail as a result. […]

After the court’s ruling, the drug law previously in place will automatically take effect