Drug WarRant

Colo. Teen Addiction Centers Gear Up for Legal Pot

While many Coloradoans rang in the new ear by lining up outside marijuana dispensaries for a celebratory toke, some rehab centers are prepping for an increase in marijuana-addicted patients in 2014, especially teenage users.

Classic scare story technique, completely bought by ABC News.

Will Marijuana Retailers Target the Poor and Minorities?

I haven’t watched this debate between David Frum and Andrew Sullivan, but I can bet the title comes from something David Frum is claiming. It fits with the tactics of Frum, Kennedy, Sabet, et al. And it is so incredibly offensive, given how prohibition has actually targeted the poor and minorities in devastating ways for decades now.

(Tell me if I’m wrong about the debate.)

Both of these stories (along with the one about the toddler) have been tweeted by ONDCP spokesperson Raphael LeMaitre, proving to those who didn’t already know, that the ONDCP prefers unsubstantiated scare stories to facts.

Both Ruth Markus (The Perils of legalized pot – Washington Post) and David Brooks (Weed – Been There. Done That. – New York Times) came out with columns where they both talked about their own enjoyment of pot and their certainty that it should be illegal for the rest of us.

Brooks:

For a little while in my teenage years, my friends and I smoked marijuana. It was fun. I have some fond memories of us all being silly together. I think those moments of uninhibited frolic deepened our friendships.[…]

In legalizing weed, citizens of Colorado are, indeed, enhancing individual freedom. But they are also nurturing a moral ecology in which it is a bit harder to be the sort of person most of us want to be.

Marcus:

I have done my share of inhaling, though back in the age of bell-bottoms and polyester.

Next time I’m in Colorado, I expect, I’ll check out some Bubba Kush. Why not? […]

Still, widespread legalization is a bad idea,[…]

So the reason to single out marijuana is the simple fact of its current (semi-)illegality. On balance, society will not be better off with another legal mind-altering substance. In particular, our kids will not be better off with another legal mind-altering substance.

I was planning on dismantling their columns, but it turns out the entire internet has been doing exactly that all day. It’s turned into massive ridicule. Very enjoyable.

Adam Serwer, MSNBC: A tale of two pot users: OK for elites, illegal for others

On Friday, two major newspaper columnists, Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post and David Brooks of the New York Times, admitted to using marijuana. Yet just as all three of the above presidents presided over a criminal justice system that imposes harsh punishments for marijuana use, Marcus and Brooks argue against Colorado and Washington’s marijuana initiatives, on the basis that marijuana is bad for you. […]

Presumably, Brooks and Marcus don’t think of themselves as criminals who should have gone to jail for their drug use, any more than our three past presidents. Marcus all but acknowledges as much, saying that “[t]hrowing people in jail for smoking pot is dumb and wasteful.” But that’s what marijuana being illegal means in most states and under federal law: It means people go to jail.

It almost never means, however, that people like Brooks and Marcus go to jail. 

Juli Weiner in Vanity Fair does a spot-on satirical impression of David Brooks’ column David Brooks: Been There. Done That.

In reading Brooks, citizens of Bethesda and certain parts of Brooklyn are, indeed, enhancing lazy thinking. But they are also nurturing a moral ecology in which it is a bit harder to be the sort of person most of us want to be.

David Weigel at Slate: Ruth Marcus, David Brooks, and reefer madness

The shared Brooks/Marcus thesis is that marijuana was basically all right for young people to try years ago, before they became columnists, but that legalizing it will lead to a worse and lazier society.

Charles Pierce at Esquire: Two Dopes

In my days of doing the blog, I have pondered, often, the teleological conundrum of whether an omnipotent god could make a stick big enough to shove up his own ass. When this speculation becomes too difficult, I make myself a lesser case — is it possible for anyone to have a bigger stick up their ass than the one currently residing in the nether quarters of David Brooks? Today, at least, I have the answer to the latter question.

Yes, it is.

Come on down, Ruth Marcus, famous NSA apologist, weeper for misunderstood torturers, recent Glenn Greenwald heavy-bag workout, and scourge of teenage potty-mouths everywhere, and a woman who makes the late Erma Bombeck read like Rosa Luxembourg and who makes David Brooks sound like Richard Brautigan.

The two of them wrote essentially the same column today.

Judy Berman at Flavorwire: David Brooks’ and Ruth Marcus’ Anti-Weed Columns Condensed for Maximum Stoner Hilarity

David Brooks and Ruth Marcus evidently drew the short straws at the New York Times and Washington Post (respectively), each 50-something writer filing an anti-legalization screed made highly awkward by the fact that both have done their share of toking in this lifetime.

Jonathan Fischer at CityDesk: Ruth Marcus and David Brooks Smoke Pot: A Play in One Act

Gary Greenberg: I Smoked Pot with David Brooks – fun satire based on the Brooks column.

Atrios at Eschaton

They both want Official Disapproval of activities they happily participated in once upon a time because kids today, but Offical Disapproval means people go to jail. Not Brooks and Marcus of course, or their kids, but other people.

And for a special bonus:

Here is the clip of Glenn Greenwald completely dismantling Ruth Marcus on CNN regarding Snowden. If you don’t want to watch the entire thing, just check out Glenn’s first response at 1:45. It’s time someone took these Washington elite to task.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OouL16eWQvk

Longmont toddler tests positive for THC after acting oddly

Satur said the girl’s mother said she does not use drugs, but she told police she found the girl eating a cookie that she had reportedly found outside the family’s apartment complex on the 200 block of East Eighth Avenue about a half hour before the family headed to the store. […]

Satur said the toddler is fine.

Expect to hear more of this kind of story.

So, a toddler eats something off the street she shouldn’t have and is fine, and that’s news? Yep.

….

By the way, it’s ridiculous how many idiots on Twitter and Facebook were actually taken in by the very badly written Daily Current satire piece that said 37 people died of marijuana overdoses the first day.

Some… interesting… predictions in this piece: Pot law: Hazy days ahead for state

From Jonathan Caulkins:

Caulkins expects impaired driving to become a bigger issue, particularly after initial 2013 reports from the Washington State Patrol showed a 50 percent increase in the number of drivers testing positive for pot.

This is either imprecise speech or lazy reporting. What does “become a bigger issue” mean? It could mean that he thinks it’ll come up in political cannabis-related discussions more often (with which I agree), or it could mean that he thinks there will be more impaired driving (with which I would disagree). So I can’t really evaluate the prediction. And the second half of the sentence is meaningless and distracting. Any comment, Jon?

Note: Jon has other predictions regarding vaporizing with which I agree.

From Kevin Sabet:

Legalization critic Kevin Sabet of Project SAM (Smart Approaches to Marijuana) predicts little reduction in black-market violence, more negative incidents involving youth and pot, and an increase in DUI cases. Sabet said voters will start to realize legalization “may not be what they bargained for.”

He also sees the emergence of a Big Marijuana industry that finds a way around state restrictions on public use and promotion.

That’s not a prediction. It’s a wish list. Sorry, Kev. And I’d invite you to respond, but you’ve made it clear that you won’t talk to me.

Mark Kleiman:

Concentrated forms of marijuana, such as butane hash oil, will come to dominate the market over herbal buds and flowers, Kleiman predicted.

This one baffles me.

Conventional wisdom is that prohibition always results in more concentrated forms, where legal regimes tend to allow the emergence and popularity of more bulky, lower potency forms. With alcohol prohibition, for example, whiskey was the preferred drink and beer and wine were pretty much non-existent. The same is true with pretty much any drug.

I’m curious as to why higher concentration would be more desired in a legal regime, particularly when the majority of new use is likely to be casual users who probably won’t want too-high potency. If anything, the return of casual-use baby boomers, who quit cannabis because of its legal status, will result in increased demand for moderate potency product.

Now I don’t know much about butane hash oil, so maybe there’s some reason why it would become more popular than plant cannabis, but I’m not seeing it off-hand.

Unless the reason is that they set the purchasing limits so ridiculously low that people will need to purchase more concentrated products in order to have a reasonable consumable quantity?

Mark?

If nothing else, this article gives us some fun things to check out and come back to in the next year or two.

Update: Mark responds via Twitter:

That seems to be the trend in CA and WA. No harsh smoke, no smell, greater efficiency, greater user control of dosage.

Interesting. I’m curious to see if that plays out. I can see the potential if it actually means greater user control of dosage. But I really wonder if it discounts the existence of the “beer consumption style” of cannabis smoking where people actually enjoy the social process of consumption and not just getting to your preferred high more quickly and easily.

The excellent Diane Goldstein (a member of LEAP) has a good tongue-in-cheek column: I am a Recovering Drug War Addict

She suggests the need for a program for drug war addicts…

How do we create a “safe space” for both our political and law enforcement leaders to publicly acknowledge what most admit behind closed doors, which is that, indeed, our current policy is a failure. I propose that we start a Drug-War Addiction 12-step Program where lawmakers and law enforcement leaders can safely discuss why they are addicted to the Drug War (okay sarcasm here), and how they can change.

Here’s one of my favorite “steps” proposed:

Examining and making amends for past errors with the help of a sponsor. Making amends requires that we acknowledge that part of our failure to change is the addiction to the many perks of the Drug War. This can include policing for profit under the guise of asset forfeiture, federal categorical block grants that supplement police budgets based on narcotics enforcement only, or Department of Defense surplus equipment (4.2 billion worth nationally since 1990) that has contributed to the militarization of our police. I propose Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) to fulfill that role, as we have already conquered our addictions by adhering to these steps;

Link

A federal judge on Tuesday struck down a law requiring Florida cash welfare recipients first pass a drug test. The law, enacted in 2011, had been temporarily blocked by a federal judge under grounds that it might constitute an illegal search and seizure.

Of course, the governor isn’t happy:

“Any illegal drug use in a family is harmful and even abusive to a child,” Scott said. “We should have a zero tolerance policy for illegal drug use in families – especially those families who struggle to make ends meet and need welfare assistance to provide for their children. We will continue to fight for Florida children who deserve to live in drug-free homes by appealing this judge’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals.”

But of course, the point is that the law is not directed at those who use illegal drugs. It assumes an entire class of people to be acting illegally unless they prove otherwise. And that is offensive to the Constitution.

This simple fact seems to elude so many seemingly intelligent individuals. I have had a lot of friends who support drug testing for welfare recipients, and their argument always goes something like the governor’s… “taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for their drug use…. if they’re going to break the law, they should be tested.”

There are a lot of arguments against testing – it’s not cost-effective, it’s demeaning, it doesn’t really help those who need help, but ultimately, the thing that makes it unacceptable to the Constitution is the simple fact that mandatory suspicionless drug testing by the government is not a reasonable search, which violates the Fourth Amendment.

The Denver Post has a new website for their pot culture reporter: The Cannabist, with cannabis reviews, recipes and much more.

Looks like a good site.

…

Jacob Sullum writes about What to expect when Colorado’s marijuana shops open on Wednesday

Short answer: shortages and price increases

This peer-reviewed paper is several years old, but I thought it was very interesting and brought up some important points about how we in society tend to deal with those who wish to give up a particular “vice.”

The Global Research Neglect of Unassisted Smoking Cessation

It’s a study related to those who quit smoking tobacco, but the relevance goes far beyond that. Here’s the basic point…

As with problem drinking, gambling, and narcotics use, population studies show consistently that a large majority of smokers who permanently stop smoking do so without any form of assistance. In 2003, some 20 years after the introduction of cessation pharmacotherapies, smokers trying to stop unaided in the past year were twice as numerous as those using pharmacotherapies and only 8.8% of US quit attempters used a behavioural treatment. Moreover, despite the pharmaceutical industry’s efforts to promote pharmacologically mediated cessation and numerous clinical trials demonstrating the efficacy of pharmacotherapy, the most common method used by most people who have successfully stopped smoking remains unassisted cessation (cold turkey or reducing before quitting. In 1986, the American Cancer Society reported that: “Over 90% of the estimated 37 million people who have stopped smoking in this country since the Surgeon General’s first report linking smoking to cancer have done so unaided.” Today, unassisted cessation continues to lead the next most successful method (nicotine replacement therapy [NRT]) by a wide margin.

Yet, paradoxically, the tobacco control community treats this information as if it was somehow irresponsible or subversive and ignores the potential policy implications of studying self-quitters.

There is a ton of financial incentive in convincing people that they need help in quitting whatever they wish to quit, including self-interest from the treatment industry and the pharmacological industry. (One of the most bizarre things in my mind to happen in recent years has been the development of drugs to help people quit cannabis.)

Particularly irresponsible in this area has been the incessant emphasis on treatment by the U.S. government and the irresponsible “third-way-ers,” who have practically come out in favor of forced treatment for all illicit drug users. Of course, the truth is that most drug users do so non-problematically and don’t need help. And of those who have a problem with their use and wish to reduce or quit, a very large number could do so on their own.

This is not to say that treatment procedures and medications are without value. For some problem users, they can be life-saving.

But we’re essentially telling people that they can’t quit unless they get treatment. And that’s not only wrong, it’s potentially damaging as it may actually convince people that they are unable to quit.

We’re just days away from the first legal recreational sales in Colorado. Many are projecting shortages of product to begin with (not surprising as there will certainly be a beginning surge as a kind of celebration of the new status). It’ll be interesting to see how it all shakes out. City of Denver has even put out a map of retail stores.

One of the things that has come from all the discussions about legalization in Washington and Colorado is perhaps a better understanding of the word “legalize” on the part of the general public.

There have been understandable concerns about reformers using the “L” word in past years because the prohibitionists painted it as an extreme, so that many in the public thought that legalization meant anarchy.

Now that they’ve seen the exhaustive (and exhausting) debates over how to regulate legal cannabis, it seems to me that they’re understanding that legal doesn’t necessarily mean unregulated.

This will help in future polls regarding public views on legalization, not only of cannabis, but as we move to legalizing other substances (for which public support in the past has been anemic).

I’ve got a number of commitments over the holidays so I’ll be in and out here. Yet there’s a whole lot going on, so everyone take shifts and keep active in comments, while having a wonderful, joyous, and safe holidays.

Plenty of eggnog in the fridge, spiced cider on the stove, and someone brought some fresh-baked sugar cookies with sprinkles. I think the fruitcake finally got tossed out last year.