Drug WarRant

A much better article in The Nation than the one after election day in USA Today. Dave Zirin: THe NFL’s Coming Conflict on Cannabis, which he notes the dysfunctional NFL policies.

In the bizarre macho ethos of the NFL, alcoholism is ignored, pain killer abuse is encouraged and other violent, off-field behavior is winked at because these are byproducts of the kind of destructive masculinity that the NFL markets every Sunday. Marijuana, in contrast, is for hippies, beatniks and long-hairs.

In reality, weed wouldn’t turn NFL players into extras from Half-Baked. Players will use marijuana either to wind down after a game, as a healthier, less addictive alternative to alcohol, or as a way to manage their pain. This last point is particularly explosive for the NFL. Amidst lawsuits, suicides and documentaries, there is unprecedented attention being paid to the physical toll players have to endure, particularly concussion and brain injury. Medical marijuana is recommended by doctors for headaches, light-sensitivity, sleeplessness and loss of appetite—all of which happen to be symptoms associated with concussions. The idea that the league would deny a player their legal pain relief of choice seems barbaric. It’s their pain and their right to treat it however they see fit.

I think this article has it right. Quietly, marijuana will eventually ease off the NFL banned list as more states legalize.

Mark Kleiman has a very reasonable article at The Crime Report: Legalizing Pot: One Step at a Time. I’m pretty sure a version of it has been published elsewhere, but it’s essentially a plea for the federal government to let us learn from the federalist experiments in Colorado and Washington.

What’s bizarre is the current sole comment at the article, by someone called Dr. Alexander Jablanczy MD. It’s not abundantly clear what he actually supports – he claims to be a quasi libertarian and supports “liberalisation” as well as supporting some kind of control group with the “death penalty imposed for any buying or selling or trasporting [sic] of any drug whatsoever.” He also claims that “marihuana” made his IQ “drop like a stone.” I’m willing to take his word that his IQ is low, but rather doubt his explanation.

I wonder if this guy has actual patients, and whether they should be… warned.

Continue reading →

A little piece, but one that made me stand up and cheer on a small miner’s union in Vancouver.

Miners Union Fights Drug-Testing Policy

VANCOUVER, B.C. (CN) – A coal miners union wants Teck Coal to put the brakes on a random drug-testing policy before wrapping up arbitration proceedings.

The union claims that the new policy is unjustified, as injury rates at open-pit mines are “lower than that for a lawn bowling facility.”

Two locals of the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union claim in B.C. Supreme Court that Teck Coal wants to start randomly drug and alcohol testing miners at its open-pit Elkview and Fording River coal mines known by Dec. 3.

The union filed a grievance, citing privacy concerns. It claims that until now, the company tested workers only before hiring them, for “reasonable cause,” or after an accident.

That’s something that any good union should do – protect its workers from unreasonable intrusion into their private lives.

I really liked a recent tweet from Lee Rosenberg:

Based on my experience, if I encounter a company that wants to drug test applicants, I conclude they have management problems.

Exactly.

He followed that up with a post where he noted that certain industries (in particular, those who need to compete for the best workers) have generally dropped out of the drug testing craze…

Being in the software/internet/IT world, I don’t have to worry about this any more. In fact, if I come across a company that actually wants me to take a drug test (and isn’t being forced by federal policy to do so), I’d take it as a sign there’s something wrong with the company. It’s like saying “we’re so dysfunctional, a person with a drug problem can pass the interview and work here unnoticed”. Almost no companies do it.

Another industry where you’re generally safe is government, as courts have generally held that, except in safety-sensitive positions, government drug testing can be a Fourth Amendment violation.

Eventually.

Via Drug Policy Alliance

Mexico’s Foreign Ministry is reporting that the United Nations has accepted its resolution to hold a General Assembly special session on drugs. The session will take place in the beginning of 2016 with preparations beginning next year.

The resolution is about international cooperation against drugs, but it’s also clearly about considering new directions and approaches.

And given the international mood that exists right now regarding the drug war, it could percolate into a mass revolt against prohibition (if it hasn’t already by then).

Do not pass go, do not go to the lunchroom.

At 9 a.m. on the morning of October 31, 2012, students at Vista Grande High School in Casa Grande were settling in to their daily routine when something unusual occurred.

Vista Grande High School Principal Tim Hamilton ordered the school — with a student population of 1,776 — on “lock down,” kicking off the first “drug sweep” in the school’s four-year history. […]

While such “drug sweeps” have become a routine matter in many of the nation’s schools, along with the use of metal detectors and zero-tolerance policies, one feature of this raid was unusual. According to Casa Grande Police Department (CGPD) Public Information Officer Thomas Anderson, four “law enforcement agencies” took part in the operation: CGPD (which served as the lead agency and operation coordinator), the Arizona Department of Public Safety, the Gila River Indian Community Police Department, and Corrections Corporation of America (CCA).

Corrections Corporation of America Used in Drug Sweeps of Public School Students

“To invite for-profit prison guards to conduct law enforcement actions in a high school is perhaps the most direct expression of the ‘schools-to-prison pipeline’ I’ve ever seen,” said Caroline Isaacs, program director of the Tucson office of the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), a Quaker social justice organization that advocates for criminal justice reform.

We start them out young with drug testing in order to be in chess club, we use law enforcement officers to pervert the job of health instruction (D.A.R.E), and now we ue for-profit prison guards to lock them down.

Yep. That’s a fine way to prepare our youth for their future lives.

I was struck by this headline: Report: Shooter drug-free during Sikh temple killing

MILWAUKEE — A white supremacist with a history of alcohol problems was drug-free when he walked into a Sikh temple in the U.S. this summer and fatally shot six people before killing himself, according to a toxicology report released Wednesday.

There’s almost a sense of… bafflement in the article. If it wasn’t drugs that caused a man to fatally shoot six people and then himself, what could it possibly have been?

Remember the Zombie who had eaten part of a man’s face? The assumption was that he was high on “bath salts” – an assumption that was repeated without evidence over and over, even leading to new laws against bath salts… despite the fact that the autopsy found no such drug (not even the autopsy stopped supposed news outlets from continuing to repeat the false story).

And of course, whenever there is some heinous crime and drugs are discovered, it’s a pretty sure bet that they will be blamed, regardless of any evidence as to their causing the behavior, as opposed to blaming the individual.

Recently, the ONDCP’s communications director Rafael Lemaitre tweeted:

Tragic story. http://t.co/it9Hx5ZU Help raise awareness. Learn more on what the research shows re: drugged driving http://t.co/HmXIzcfX

The tragic drugged driving story was about four young people who were killed in a car accident, and the driver tested positive for marijuana. The inference, of course, was that the drug caused their deaths. But the story is actually about a 17-year-old without a driver’s license who was driving 110 miles per hour at 3:35 am. Whether or not he was stoned, it certainly wasn’t marijuana that caused that accident.

As uncomfortable as it is to consider, sometimes there are people who are just plain fucking nuts. You can’t “explain” them by blaming some drug they took. They just are.

And all you can do is hope that when they do melt down they’ll become Darwin Award recipients instead of taking out their friends or some innocent Sikhs.

Blaming drugs won’t help.

Excellent video interview at The Guardian: ‘The House I Live In’ director Eugene Jarecki on the war on drugs: ‘Everybody is a Victim’

Among other things, he discusses the notion (that we’ve discussed here) that perhaps the drug war is a success, depending on what you are measuring.

There was another study done, this time in California, where drivers were asked to voluntarily participate and were tested for alcohol and other drugs (breathalyzer and saliva tests, primarily).

Naturally, this has led to another spate of hysterical reporting about the road filled with stoned drivers. The L.A. Times topped the list with its headline blaring: More Californians driving high than drunk on weekends, study says. Of course, the study says nothing of the kind.

And its not just the headline writer who blows it. Reporter Wesley Lowery writes “14% of drivers surveyed tested positive for driving under the influence of impairing drugs.” “Under the influence”? No, the study didn’t show that at all.

But ignorant reporters who haven’t done their homework can easily be taken by the way this study data is presented to them.

Check out the press release that went out to the media:

The survey results announced today by the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) showed more drivers tested positive for drugs that may impair driving (14 percent) than did for alcohol (7.3 percent). Of the drugs, marijuana was most prevalent, at 7.4 percent, slightly more than alcohol.

“This federally funded survey is the first of its kind ever undertaken by a state,” said Christopher J. Murphy, Director of the Office of Traffic Safety. “These results reinforce our belief that driving after consuming potentially impairing drugs is a serious and growing problem.”

The survey also noted that 7.3 percent of drivers tested positive for alcohol. Of those testing positive for alcohol, 23 percent also tested positive for at least one other drug. This combination can increase the effect of both substances. Illegal drugs were found in the systems of 4.6 percent of drivers, and 4.6 percent also tested positive for prescription or over-the-counter medications that may impair driving. More than one quarter (26.5 percent) of drivers testing positive for marijuana also tested positive for at least one other drug. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has reported that, when looking at drivers who were killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2010 in California, 30 percent tested positive for legal and/or illegal drugs, a percentage that has increased since 2006.

“Drugged driving poses a serious threat to public safety,” said Gil Kerlikowske, Director of National Drug Control Policy. “We commend the California Office of Traffic Safety for shedding light on this growing problem and for educating Californians about the prevalence of this danger. We look forward to working with California and other states to raise awareness about this important issue and continue to take action to make our roadways safer.”

The newspeak is really quite beautiful.

I really love the use of the phrase “drugs that may impair driving.” Wow. See what they’re doing there? They’re being technically accurate and saying that the drivers merely tested positive, not that they were impaired. But by calling the drugs “drugs that may impair driving” they get the word “impair” in there making readers (or ignorant reporters and headline writers) to make the connection for them.

Or check out this gem by Christopher Murphy: “This federally funded survey is the first of its kind ever undertaken by a state, … These results reinforce our belief that driving after consuming potentially impairing drugs is a serious and growing problem.” Again, I am humbled by the sheer audacity of the notion of stating that the first study of its kind could prove that this is a “growing” problem. And yet, he’s not the only one! Kerlikowske does the same thing later in the piece.

Someday I want to meet the evil geniuses who write text like this. Do they consider their intentionally deceptive writing some kind of big game? I”d really like to know.

….

Going back to the L.A. Times headline. While it was totally unsupported by the facts of the study, think about it for a moment. “More Californians driving high than drunk on weekends…”

If only.

(An increase in stoned drivers combined with an equal decrease in drunk drivers would likely result in safer roads.)

A note for those who have not followed this issue. Nobody is recommending that people drive impaired or in any way make the roads less safe. The point is that the intentional misuse of data does not ever make roads safer.

Ten years from now, will we all be camping outside the big box cannabis store to get the best Black Friday deals on Christmas bud?