What war?

Coincidentally after the last post (but not in response to it), ONDCP’s Rafael LeMaitre tweets:

We’re serious about supporting a #publichealth approach to policy – one based on science, not a ‘war on drugs’ or ‘legalize it’ ideology.

Right. So if the ONDCP isn’t supporting the war on drugs, who is? Becuase that is clearly the policy of this country. Is the ONDCP some fringe group?

I asked Rafael “@RafaelONDCP Where do responsible adult users (non-abusers) of currently illicit drugs fit within that approach?” I’ll let you know if he answers.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

And the police action rages on

The drug czar can claim all he wants that the drug war is over. Tell that to the people every day in this country who have their doors broken down by armed militarized forces.

Oh, yeah, and tell the Marines, too.

Marines vs Zetas: U.S. Hunts Drug Cartels in Guatemala

The war on drugs just got a whole lot more warlike. Two hundred U.S. Marines have entered Guatemala, on a mission to chase local operatives of the murderous Zeta drug cartel.

The Marines are now encamped after having deployed to Guatemala earlier this month, and have just “kicked off” their share of Operation Martillo, or Hammer. That operation began earlier in January, and is much larger than just the Marine contingent and involves the Navy, Coast Guard, and federal agents working with the Guatemalans to block drug shipment routes.

It’s a big shift for U.S. forces in the region. For years, the Pentagon has sent troops to Guatemala, but these missions have been pretty limited to exercising “soft power” — training local soldiers, building roads and schools. Operation Martillo is something quite different.

[Thanks, Dan]
Posted in Uncategorized | 24 Comments

Teens, researchers, reporters, and how cannabis affects their IQ

One of the big discussions on the internet (and here in comments) yesterday was this study from New Zealand that was reported in the media as proving that use of marijuana by teens resulted in lowered IQ.

Check out the “reporting” by NBC’s Tia Ghose:

Teens who smoke marijuana see their IQs drop as adults, and deficits persist even after quitting, according to a new study.

“The findings are consistent with speculation that cannabis use in adolescence, when the brain is undergoing critical development, may have neurotoxic effects,” study researcher Madeline Meier of Duke University said in a statement.

The study followed 1,037 New Zealand children for 25 years. Subjects took IQ tests at age 13, before any of them had smoked marijuana, and again at age 38. Throughout the study, participants also answered several surveys about their drug use.

My first reaction was “New Zealand? Why is it always New Zealand when they find something bad about cannabis?”

And it does seem to be true. New Zealand was where they did the tiny study that seemed to find a lung cancer connection despite the huge study in the U.S. finding no negative links at all. And there have been others.

Maybe it’s a difference in how the rigor of research is applied in Kiwiland.

Or could it have something to do with New Zealand in general? Maybe things are just really different there. After all, it’s a part of the world where some mammals have pouches, where a cute bear-like creature spends its entire life stoned on eucalyptus leaves, where birds that look like crows sound like babies crying and another bird laughs at you, where a vine can eat a tree and become a new tree, and where hobbits and wizards alike extoll the virtues of the local smoking materials. Who knows what that does to pot or pot-smokers?

Of course, the truth is that the study isn’t quite as big a deal as some of the reporters would lead you to believe. For instance, the lead sentence by Ghose: “Teens who smoke marijuana see their IQs drop as adults” is false. The implication is that 18 or 19-yeaar-olds who tried marijuana could see a drop in IQ, whereas the study only found differences in younger teens (ie, those under 18), who were regular or heavy smokers.

Maia Szalavitz explains why the breathless reporting is out of place here. Does Weekly Marijuana Use By Teens Really Cause a Drop in IQ?

Not all experts agree, however. “Scientifically, these are extremely preliminary findings,” cautions Carl Hart, associate professor of psychology at Columbia University, who has studied the cognitive effects of marijuana in humans in the lab and was not associated with the research.

Hart notes that because only 38 people in the study— around 8% of those who ever tried marijuana— used it heavily enough to get diagnosed with dependence during several follow-up periods, he is skeptical about how generalizable the results are. He says that in his studies of people who smoke at least three times a week, “When you compare these people’s scores to a normative database on a wide range of domains including executive function, memory, and inhibitory control, they score dead smack in the middle, in the 50th percentile.”

Of course, Tia Ghose never mentioned that only a small group in the study actually fit the criteria. (Just as they seldom mention that only a handful met the cancer criteria in the infamous New Zealand cannabis/cancer study).

Also:

Reacting to the study, Wim van den Brink, Professor of Psychiatry and Addiction at the University of Amsterdam said it was interesting research but its findings should not be overestimated. Speaking to Dutch daily de Volkskrant he pointed to the results from a sub-group in the study who stopped smoking the week before being tested. The effect on their IQ’s was much less pronounced. “The researchers are right to warn of the consequences of cannabis use at a young age,” he said, “but their results are probably being exaggerated.”

So, at this point, this is really nothing more than interesting research that should be viewed with caution in terms of any actual results.

However, even if the research is fully on target. If it is, in fact, true that heavy marijuana use by those under 18 can lead to lowered IQ, then it is an argument for legalization and regulation with age limits, not the status quo. I don’t know of any in the reform community who are pushing for heavy use of marijuana by children.

The more we have ramped up marijuana emforcement, the more we have ceded our ability to control age use of marijuana. School zones are a joke, because they have nothing to do with limiting use by children, but rather are a means of piling on charges for drug deals that didn’t involve them at all.

When I was in college in the 1970s, marijuana was illegal, but enforcement was much more lax. People regularly smoked pot in the dorms, and campus police walking by would merely sometimes ask that you close the door to limit the amount in the hallways. However, it was made very clear that if anyone sold pot to the High School students in town, there would be hell to pay. It was a clear line and one that was followed scrupulously. Oh, sure, I bet some High School students found a way to get some pot ocassionally (you’ll never be able to eliminate that entirely), but you can set up systems that say “above this age is deemed OK, and below this age is not” and make a real difference.

The best way to do that, of course, is through regulated legalization.

The one thing we know for sure from this study is that there is nothing in it that justifies arresting responsible adults.

Posted in Uncategorized | 46 Comments

Open Thread

Sorry for the recent lack of posts! It’s been a real whirlwind.

A 750-mile drive to Rochester on Thursday, then dry tech and set up the stage on Friday. The cast arrives late afternoon, and we re-block the show to fit the new stage and make several adjustments to the order before performance at 10 pm. Three more shows on Saturday, and then we drive back on Sunday. Great fun and a very successful trip with wonderful audiences.

Rear lug stud broke off on the trip back, but fortunately the wheel stayed on. Getting that fixed tomorrow.

Anyway, I’m back and looking forward to getting back up to speed on what’s going on in the drug war.


bullet image Some major action over at Huff Post tomorrow. A series of live web chats as a Shadow Convention. I believe most of these are in the noon to 4 pm Eastern time range.


bullet image We need a drug dog so we can seize more property and raise more money – a town that’s very up-front about their need to steal from citizens.

Posted in Uncategorized | 39 Comments

Anatomy of an American City

Think a non-fiction version of “The Wire”

Al Jazeera’s Fault Lines — “Baltimore: Anatomy of an American City

So… how come we can’t get Al Jazeera on American cable systems?

Posted in Uncategorized | 24 Comments

Gateway

Almost two years ago, Maia Szalavitz put a stake in Marijuana as a Gateway Drug: The Myth That Will Not Die

It seemed a shame that she even had to talk about it. It’s so thoroughly discredited that it shouldn’t even be a discussion (and, of course, what we’re talking about is the notion that marijuana use causes users to move on to other drugs). We have decades of data on drug use proving that the vast majority of marijuana users never show any interest in doing “harder” drugs.

Maia is right. It still will not die. In their recent book “Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know,” the Kleiman, Caulkins, Hawken, and Kilmer gang were more interested in promoting uncertainty than in science.

“What is not at all clear, however, is whether marijuana use causes subsequent use of other drugs, or whether it is merely a signal […]

They have apparently decided since there isn’t final conclusive and absolute proof of [non-causality/global warming/round earth revolving around the sun/gravity/etc.] they’ll actively not rule out [causality/warming denial/there be dragons/etc.]

Posted in Uncategorized | 40 Comments

Open Thread

I’m working on preparations for taking my show on the road to Rochester, New York. If you’re in that area, please come see me (and the show). Performances are Friday and Saturday.


bullet image Why Russell Brand is Wrong about Methadone by Maia Szalavitz.

Interesting article on a subject that’s outside of my expertise.


bullet image Rio de Janeiro drug dealers saying no to crack, planning a ban on the destructive drug

Nonetheless, the other gangs are signing up, said attorney Flavia Froes. Her clients include the most notorious figures of Rio’s underbelly, and she has been shuttling between them, visiting favelas and far-flung high-security prisons to talk up the idea.

“They’re joining en masse. They realized that this experience with crack was not good, even though it was lucrative. The social costs were tremendous. This wasn’t a drug for the rich; it was hitting their own communities.”


bullet image US, Mexican officials Brokering Deals with Drug ‘Cartels,’ Wikileaks Documents Show by Narco News


bullet image When Cartels Are Cartels, Public Safety Wins

Homicides are way down in Ciudad Juarez, which the Mexican government naturally attributes to its own successful policies. But not everyone is convinced and William Booth thinks local people have “another, more credible reason for the decrease in extreme violence: The most-wanted drug lord in the world, Joaquin ‘El Chapo’ Guzman, and his Sinaloa cartel have won control of the local drug trade and smuggling routes north.” […] The drug trafficking organizations are commonly known as cartels, but the horrific violence stems precisely from the fact that they aren’t cartels.


bullet image Russell Simmons needs to read a bit more about Joe Biden. (Via Radley Balko)


bullet image Also via Radley: Embattled N. Georgia magistrate resigns

Cochran agreed never to seek or hold judicial office again, according to a consent order the JQC posted on its website Thursday.

The JQC’s public report said its investigation focused on “whether the judge pre-signed blank arrest warrants for completion by law enforcement officers while he was absent from office.” The report also said the inquiry included “whether the judge allowed the prestige of his office to advance his private interests.”

Blank warrants. Hey – just go ahead and arrest anyone you want! Who needs evidence or probably cause?

Posted in Uncategorized | 36 Comments

Legalization isn’t the question

Unfortunately, most drug policy discussions today revolve around imagined potential gains or problems resulting from legalization of certain drugs. And because of the politics involved, we often really have no choice but to play these ridiculous games. But, in fact, it’s very much the wrong question.

The actual question is criminalization. And the answer is “no.”

When you look at the issue properly, you see that what we need to discuss is correcting the massive wrongness of criminalization.

Those who support prohibition have never been required to actually put forth coherent and defendable justifications for criminalization. Instead, they get to claim criminalization as the status quo and merely object to minor details or uncertainties regarding “legalization.” They actually act as if prohibition is the default in our country, which is far from the truth.

And so we get caught up in completely bizarre and meaningless disputes. I was struck, for example, by the utter glee with which Mark Kleiman gloats over his group’s dismantling of the claim that marijuana is the number one cash crop in the U.S. Turns out, according to their calculations, that it’s merely in the top 15.

Other than from a purely academic perspective, who the hell cares? It’s presented as if that is somehow some kind of big blow to legalization, which makes very little sense, but fits within the “gotcha” approach to protecting the status quo, where unless the absolute furthest value of each and every argument mentioned by some legalization activist somewhere is 100% verifiable, then legalization must be flawed.

The better question is: What does the overall cash value of marijuana in the country have to do with the decision to put people in jail for using it?

And so, we’re mired down in arguments over how much tax revenue will come from future drug sales, what percentage of income the cartels get from a particular drug, or what kind of advertising will be allowed, rather than asking why the hell we’re putting people in jail for this.

So, let’s take a look at the right question.

Should drugs be criminalized?

It’s a five-part question.

Step 1: Does the government have the authority to criminalize drugs?

This is not as obvious as some may think, particularly if you look at history.

The Constitution of the United States specifically does not give police powers to the federal government. That kind of power was considered a state function. However, there is one clause in the constitution which gives the government the following “limited” power…

to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

This is generally known as the commerce clause. As intended, in the early years of this country’s history, the commerce clause allowed only minimal instrusion on the activities within states. For example, federal alcohol prohibition was not considered constitutionally possible without an amendment because of the commerce clause, and judges also regularly placed the tenth amendment in the path of congressional regulation of “local” affairs. [1]

So, even though the Supreme Court has, in modern day, given the federal government extraordinarily wide-reaching powers, there is historical precedent for denying it.

But there is also current Supreme Court jurisprudence that could argue against government prohibition, particularly when you think about cases like Lawrence v. Texas and Roe v. Wade.

If the government doesn’t have the authority to interfere with someone killing a fetus, or with someone sticking a penis into someone else’s anus in the privacy of their own bedroom, it’s not that hard to imagine that maybe the government shouldn’t be able to prevent one from eating a marijuana brownie. If pregnant women and homosexuals have autonomy over their own bodies, then why not drug users?

Is cognitive liberty not a protected right?

So, if you agree that the government has no authority to ban liberty, it’s simple. Criminalization of drug use is wrong.

However, if this doesn’t sway you, and you think that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are just some pretty words used for poetic license, and not something real, then you may decide that the government is fully in the right in their authority to ban drugs, and you can continue to step 2.

Step 2: Are drugs dangerous?

It would seem that you’d need to determine that a particular drug is dangerous if you’re going to ban it, unless you’re just doing it because Mexicans or Negro jazz musicians or dirty hippies use it, or because you can make a buck off of criminalization.

And if you’re going to ban something for being dangerous, you should know something about the dangers — unlike our drug system which clearly has no rhyme or reason or qualified analysis of the comparative dangers (both to individuals and to society) of various drugs.

Of course, our legislators can’t be bothered by such basic matters of common sense. They’d gladly pass criminal penalties for the possession of dihydrogen monoxide, if they thought they could get credit for sponsoring the bill.

So let’s say that you think government should be given the authority to criminally prohibit drug use and that a particular drug is dangerous. That leads to step 3.

Step 3: Will criminalization significantly reduce the danger?

This is the most important question that is never asked.

Again, unfortunately, there is a tendency to legislate based on the assumption that outright prohibition will solve perceived dangers, while that is often (perhaps usually) not the case.

We have, tragically, decades of proof that criminalization will not only not reduce any dangers of drug use, but, in fact, will make drug use significantly more dangerous. Uncertain dosage and purity, lack of practical education, and so much more.

However, if you’ve given up on liberty, are convinced that drugs are dangerous, and actually think that prohibition reduces the danger, despite basic common sense and years of evidence, then you’re ready to proceed to step 4.

Step 4: Is criminalization the best way to reduce the danger?

Another important calculation that is too often ignored.

We don’t eliminate speech because some speech is dangerous when used in a particular way. There are thousands of human activities which can be dangerous when abused, yet we don’t criminalize all who participate. We deal with these things through education, through regulation, through helping those people who can’t handle the activity.

The worst possible option would be to criminalize (with jail time, even) millions of people who are not causing any harm, because of a tiny minority who abuse drugs. It would be a complete failure of imagination and intelligence to be unable to craft legislation that targets the problem user without dragging everyone else in with it.

However, if you’re anti-freedom, think drugs are dangerous, lack the common sense to realize that criminalization won’t make them less dangerous, and don’t care about criminalizing millions of innocents because of your pathetic inability to craft targeted policy, then yes, you’re ready to move on to step 5.

Step 5: Are the advantages of criminalization worth the destructive elements of prohibition?

Let’s assume that you’ve gotten this far, and actually believe there to be dangers of drugs that can be solved appropriately by criminalization. You then must weigh that slight good with all the destructive negatives of prohibition. Such as:

… and the list goes on.

That’s the five-part question that really needs to be answered. And it takes quite a bit of self-delusion to get through that exercise and still support criminalization.

No, legalization really isnt the question. But it sure is the answer.

Posted in Uncategorized | 54 Comments

Economist Poll

An interesting online poll at The Economist. The poll is Should drugs like cocaine and heroin be legalised? You vote on a seven-point scale from definitely not to definitely, and you vote by country. You can see a color-coded world map of voting results and check the results of voting within specific countries.

Of course, as an online poll, it’s not at all scientific, but it’s still interesting. Go over and add your vote.

Posted in Uncategorized | 24 Comments

Stupid Drug War Tricks

A truly bizarre article.

U.S. News and World Report, covering a report from Borderland Beat (translation from Proceso Magazine):

“Bin Laden-like SEAL Team Raid Could Take Down Mexican Drug Kingpin”

The Pentagon may send Navy SEALs into Mexico to take out drug kingpin Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman in a raid mirroring the one that took out Osama bin Laden, Proceso magazine reports. […]

Calderon approved of the idea, but because the Mexican Army and Navy balked, Washington will wait to propose the idea to Mexico’s next president, Enrique Peña Nieto, according to Proceso’s interviews with anonymous Mexican and American military sources.

According to the sources, the proposed raid would be performed by two small teams of specially-trained SEALs, armed helicopters, and three missile-equipped drones. One SEAL team would be dropped on the ground and the other remaining in the air, with the drones providing backup support and surveillance. No Mexican military or police would assist in the raid.

Of course, if such a raid were successful, about all that would do is create a vacuum that would be filled by violence.

And a full-out U.S. military raid in Mexico? Right.

Some may point to the stupidity of letting the SEAL team plans get published in major magazines in both Spanish and English, but with the money that drug trafficking organizations have to play with, you can bet they get this kind of information long before any reporters.

Posted in Uncategorized | 29 Comments