Drug WarRant

Still immersed in the Blue Whiskey Independent Film Festival (I’m a judge) through this weekend.

It’s pretty sad that Kevin Sabet can’t handle comments and has to have them disabled when he writes at Huffington Post

Should the FDA regulate recreational drugs? – a new article at Time by Maia Szalavitz.

Regulation is the answer. Not sure that the FDA is.

Pot Legalization is Coming in Rolling Stone

Melinda Haag’s US Department of Pre-Crime by Russ Belville

Is the CIA a drug cartel? Mexican official blames CIA for drug war

A Mexican government official has told reporters that the CIA and other international security forces are not fighting drug traffickers, but rather they are managing the trade. This is the latest astounding claim about violence that has lasted more than six years and claimed more than 55,000 lives.

JUAREZ, MEXICO (Catholic Online) – Guillermo Terrazas Villanueva, spokesman for the Chihuahua state government in northern Mexico, made the claim which has people in Washington upset. While Villanueva is not the first person to make such claims, he is the highest-ranking official to do so thus far.
 
Villanueva told a reporter for Al Jazeera, “It’s like pest control companies, they only control, if you finish off the pests, you are out of a job. If they finish the drug business, they finish their jobs.”

Good article at Philly.com: Law enforcement likes getting realliy high off drug busts

IT HAPPENS before the news conference, before the plastic-wrapped bricks of dope are arranged on the table for the TV cameras and before headlines are made.

Cops calculate the “street value.” It’s a branch of mathematics in which economies of scale meet public relations.

By envisioning thousands of transactions that will never occur — and sometimes padding the numbers on top of that — law-enforcement agencies can wind up doubling, tripling, quadrupling, quintupling, sextupling or even septupling what the confiscated drugs are worth to the bulk-level dealers who got popped.

In the hands of a narcotics cop with a calculator, $2 million of heroin can become $9 million, $500,000 worth of meth can become $2.5 million, coke worth less than $1 million can become several million.

We’ve often noted the inflated values given by law enforcement and this article gives numerous examples.

Of course, the real problem is that the entire public relations game of showing off seizures is nothing more than blatant self-promotion. It has nothing to do with public safety. When a large shipment is seized, it doesn’t matter if you call it $1 million or $10 million — it’s merely a minor and temporary inconvenience to the economics of the black market and has no real impact on supply.

I’m taking a couple days off with a friend in Chicago, and then I’ll be a judge for the Blue Whiskey Independent Film Festival this week.

The Drug War Has Now Spread to Africa. Here’s Why – a good piece by Ryan Grim. The U.S.’s DEA is now going to Africa to go after Latin American drug traffickers who are transporting drugs to Europe, with the full knowledge that anything they do will only move the route, not stop it.

Sounds like an agency that’s looking to justify its own existence.

At Salon: Obama's Pot Problem

After holding the party convention in Denver and handily carrying this traditionally Republican state in 2008, Obama could be jeopardizing his reelection bid with a dismissive and even hostile approach to marijuana reform, a top issue for tens of thousands of local residents, including many of the activists who powered his last campaign.

Even if President Obama wins the election, if he loses Colorado and it appears to be because of his position on marijuana, then the entire political world will sit up and take notice.

You can already see the faint beginnings of the mad scamper away from prohibition by politicians…

See also: If Chris Christie is soft on drugs… by Rich Lowry.

If Chris Christie, arguably the toughest Republican in the country, is open to new approaches, there’s hope for everyone else.

Why we shouldn’t legalize marijuana by Charles Stimson, Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation

Once again, the Heritage Foundation demonstrates that it wants nothing to do with the truth.

Marijuana is an addictive, gateway drug. It significantly impairs bodily and mental functions, and its use is related to increased violence. These are facts.

I love that “these are facts” link. Does it link to a source of facts? No, just to another hilariously misguided article by Charles Cully Stimson back in 2010. That particular article was soundly thrashed back then by me (Charles Cully Stimson lies with the authority and confidence of a career fabricator) and others (More people have fun with Charles ‘Cully’ Stimson).

Here’s another great line in Stimson’s new article:

Lacking curative or preventive powers, marijuana — unlike alcohol — is usually consumed to the point of intoxication.

Ah yes, the old Richard Nixon/Linkletter argument again.

Have fun.

Nice story: Pot-smoking moms tired of being judged by wine drinkers

“Being judged for doing something nontoxic and totally organic, enjoying a god-given plant, by moms who suck back two bottles of Chardonnay like sports drinks feels like s—,” complains Margaret. “Any hypocrisy is hard to swallow.” […]

“If I wanted to, I could sit with a glass of wine in one hand, a cup of coffee in the other, with a cigarette pressed between my lips, under the influence of prescription narcotics — all the while holding my child in my lap,” says Serra Frank, founding director of Moms for Marijuana and mother of two, ages 9 and 12.

Not having been a parent, I can't fully understand what it's like. However, I've watched a lot of parents and have seen how incredibly stressful it can be. I can certainly imagine that something like a little pot to take the edge off now and then would be amazingly useful.

I've always liked Morgan Freeman. Here's another reason…

Morgan Freeman On Marijuana: Criminalization Of Weed Is 'Stupidest Law Possible'

Marijuana! Heavens, oh yeah. It’s just the stupidest law possible, given history. You don’t stop people from doing what they want to do, so forget about making it unlawful. You’re just making criminals out of people who aren’t engaged in criminal activity. And we’re spending zillions of dollars trying to fight a war we can’t win! We could make zillions, just legalize it and tax it like we do liquor. It’s stupid.

Gil Kerlikowske: Please Put Our Money Where Your Mouth Is

In other words, despite the ample evidence that treatment is the answer, and despite Kerlikowske’s willingness to admit that our status quo drug policy simply isn’t working, we’re actually increasing expenditures on strategies that have proven ineffective. While the minimal shift in spending on treatment is a positive development, it means little in the face of the billions that will continue to be spent on law enforcement.

UN Office on Drugs and Crime Launches Public Service Announcement on Transnational Organized Crime

Um, really? The way to fight Transnational Organized Crime is to create a Public Service Announcement?

But apparently, it's also a priority of the U.S.

Raising awareness of the cost of transnational organized crime to people and businesses is a priority action of President Obama’s Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime. The presence of the global illegal economy and the activities that sustain it – from bribery and money laundering to drug trafficking, environmental crime, and counterfeit goods, including pharmaceuticals – threaten foreign direct investment, economic growth, market integrity, and the ability of companies everywhere to maximize profits.

Belize

Marijuana possession may be decriminalized in Belize as the Central American nation joins a list of countries from Mexico to Uruguay whose leaders have called for alternatives in the U.S.-led war on drugs.

Prime Minister Dean Barrow’s government has appointed a committee to evaluate the decriminalization of up to 10 grams of marijuana

So what do you get when you take some paternalistic self-appointed academic policy wonks who write a book with good facts and flawed analyses and get them together with the Los Angeles Times?

Sing along with me: Reefer Madness…. Reefer Madness…

As 3 states mull marijuana legalization, experts warn: 'Beware'

“Legalization is unprecedented – not even the Netherlands has done it – it is entirely possible it will happen this year,” said Jonathan Caulkins, co-author of “Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know.”

“The effects will be enormous,” said Caulkins, a professor at Carnegie Mellon, during an event at the American Enterprise Institute. […]

Mark Kleiman, a professor of public policy at UCLA, said his advice to federal officials would be “to sit down with the governor of the state and say, 'Look, we can make your life completely miserable — and we will – unless you figure out a way to avoid the exports.”

I stand by my compliments for the good stuff they included in their book, but, my God, they're a bunch of whiny know-it-all chicken-little idiots without a clue when it comes down to actually doing something about a clearly failed and destructive policy. Their desire to be “fair minded” turns them into nothing more than prohibition enablers.

Update: Mason Tvert responds:

“It’s surprising and disappointing to hear academics make such bold claims without a shred of evidence to substantiate them,” Tvert said to The Huffington Post via e-mail. “It is especially disappointing since people truly respect RAND as a research organization. Unless they retract these assertions, you will undoubtedly see our opponents citing this fanciful and baseless speculation as ‘fact’ in the future. Fortunately, RAND has shown a willingness to retract marijuana-related research, as they did when law enforcement complained about their research showing that medical marijuana dispensaries did not lead to increases in crime.”

“Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know” by Jonathan P. Caulkins, Angela Hawken, Beau Kilmer, and Mark A.R. Kleiman

This is part two of my review. Please read part one to see where I talk about some excellent things that are in this book, along with some general problems. Today, I want to take a closer look at one particular small passage.

It has to do with whether or not most of those who are likely to be pre-disposed to dependent drug behavior will have already found their opportunity to become dependent prior to legalization, meaning that even if legalization results in a large increase in the number of users, it won't necessarily result in a large increase in the number of abusers.

This is something I've talked about often as a response to those who fear the unknown spike in post-legalization usage (for all currently illicit drugs), and the book addresses it, sort of…

But isn't everyone with an addictive personality already addicted to something?

Sorry, but this argument for legalization is mere wishful thinking. While it's true that people with drug addictions tend to have some personality traits in common, many of those traits (such as secretiveness) tend to develop and become entrenched only after the addictions–as effects, not causes. Certainly there are differences across individuals and population groups in susceptibility to specific addictive behaviors, and some of those differences seem to have a genetic basis. But those are tendencies, not the irrevocable decrees of fate.

The answer fails to address or (perhaps) understand the question.

As the authors note, there are certain people who, due to genetics or due to their “situation” in life, are more susceptible to dependent behaviors. These people don't need legalization for those behaviors to surface. Alcohol is legal and readily available to anyone. Illicit drugs are also far from difficult to obtain. There are very few Americans who haven't had opportunities to partake in some kind of drug, and therefore, the opportunity to feed any latent dependent tendencies.

It is highly unlikely that marijuana legalization, for example, will result in someone with a predisposition to dependency trying drugs for the first time.

Take a look at the same thing from the reverse side. What are the marginal effects of prohibition? Are drug abusers likely to be easily deterred by prohibition? Of course not. The most likely to be deterred are the casual users – the equivalent of wine-with-dinner-and-a-drink-with-friends-after-the-show-Friday-night users. Illegality deters the people who are the least problematic, and has very little effect on the problem users. So when you legalize, you are lifting the deterrence specifically for the least problematic users.

This means that while an increase in post-legalization use may result in some increase in dependency, it would likely be a far, far smaller group.

Let's say, for example, that 10% of those who currently use marijuana have some kind of dependency issues (which, as we know, are very mild with marijuana). The book uses 9%, but 10% will be easier. Now, let's assume that legalization will result in a 50% increase in the number of marijuana users. Clearly, based on the above arguments, there's no way that 10% of that increased group will be abusers. It would be a fraction of that. But let's say, for the purpose of argument, that a full 6% of that increased group will be abusers (way too high, in my opinion, but let's look at it anyway).

See the chart below. The first bar shows that for every 100 users, 10 are dependent (the remainder are labeled “recreational”). The second shows when you increase the number of users by 50% (with 6% of the increased population portion as abusers) that for every 150 users, 13 are dependent.

As this graphically demonstrates, even in a pessimistic analysis, even large increases in users post-legalization are unlikely to result in a world full of zombies.

Add to this the fact that post-legalization, all efforts can be directed at helping those who are dependent, as opposed to the prohibition sledge hammer of going after all users. There are benefits to regulated legalization that can actually reduce the number of dependent drug users. We could even theoretically see a net savings. This is critical, as that would undermine the only weak argument left for the paternalistic prohibitionist.

To be fair, the authors of the book (for the most part) do not seem overly concerned about a massive explosion of dependent marijuana users, even while overestimating the numbers. They note that marijuana dependence is significantly milder. But their inflation of likely dependent numbers is very concerning to the overall analysis in the book, and additionally, the marginal effects will be even more important to understand as we get into discussions down the road of legalized and regulated cocaine and heroin.

The author who appears most concerned about increased numbers of marijuana users is Jon Caulkins, who seems to fear an epidemic of damaged children of stoned parents.

I'm not sure where he gets that fear. It's not something you hear much about, except in ridiculous over-the-top ONDCP-funded television commercials.

It makes me wonder if there are a lot of those damaged kids who have now grown up…

Yeah, my childhood was horrible. My parents laughed a lot, and they made us listen to jazz and Pink Floyd and then we'd eat ice cream. And we had to go to music festivals…. I don't want to talk about it.

…

Still to come– I'll talk about the section on marijuana and alcohol.